5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Sofia. She practices as a lawyer and is a member of the Sofia Bar Association. 6.  By a decision of the Minister of Justice of 29 December 2001, the applicant was included on the list of persons qualified to act as liquidators of insolvent companies (see paragraphs 24-27 below). 7.  On 23 December 2003 the Sliven Regional Court decided to appoint the applicant liquidator of the State-owned company T., in respect of which that court had decided to open winding-up proceedings. The company’s management disapproved of the applicant’s performance and several times tried unsuccessfully to have her replaced by the insolvency court. 8.  On 31 March 2004 the company’s management complained to the Minister of Justice about the applicant’s performance as liquidator. Accordingly, in a letter dated 8 April 2004 the Deputy Minister of Justice informed the applicant that proceedings under section 655(3) of the Commerce Act 1991 (see paragraph 25 below) had been opened against her in connection with the complaints, and invited her to make written representations. The applicant made such representations on 11 May 2004, enclosing a number of documents. However, in the meantime, on 15 and 30 April and 5 and 11 May 2004 further complaints were made about the applicant’s performance and on 22 May 2004 the Deputy Minister invited her to make additional representations. The applicant did so on 16 June 2004. On 2 July 2004 the Deputy Minister again invited the applicant to make further representations in relation to an allegation that she had failed to draw up lists of the claims of the company’s creditors within the statutory time-limit. On 12 July 2004 the applicant made such representations. She submitted that she had not breached her duties because, even though she had failed to observe the time-limit, this had not been through her fault but due to the case file that contained the relevant documents having been sent to another town at the relevant time. 9.  On 28 July 2004 an inspector at the Ministry of Justice, having reviewed the materials, concluded that the applicant had failed in her duty as liquidator to ascertain the company’s creditors within the statutory time‑limit, and proposed to the Minister to strike the applicant off the list of persons qualified to act as liquidators of insolvent companies. She pointed out that the Supreme Administrative Court had already found that such a breach of a liquidator’s duties could in itself amount to grounds for removal from the list under section 655(3) of the 1991 Act (see paragraph 31 in fine below). 10.  On 2 August 2004 the Minister of Justice decided, by reference to section 655(3) of the 1991 Act, to strike the applicant off the list of persons qualified to act as liquidators of insolvent companies. In the reasons for his decision he pointed out that the applicant had failed to submit the above‑mentioned lists of claims against company T. within the statutory time-limit. The time-limit had expired on 8 May 2004, whereas the applicant had presented the lists at issue to the insolvency court on 18 June 2004. 11.  The decision was published in the State Gazette on 20 August 2004. 12.  The applicant sought judicial review of the decision. She reiterated her arguments that she had been prevented from submitting the documents in due time, and alleged that the Minister had failed to respect the rules of procedure and take into account her objections and explanations. 13.  The applicant in addition argued that the sanction imposed on her – removal from the list of persons qualified to act as liquidators of insolvent companies – did not correspond to the seriousness of the breach imputed to her. She pointed out that any delay on her part had not had adverse effects on the rights of company T. or its creditors. She submitted that the sanction envisaged by section 655(3) of the 1991 Act was very harsh and was reserved for situations of serious or numerous breaches on the part of a liquidator, which was clearly not her case. 14.  A three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court heard the case on 7 October 2004. It admitted a number of documents presented by the applicant. 15.  In a judgment of 18 October 2004 (реш. № 8374 от 18 октомври 2004 г. по адм. д. № 6849/2004 г., ВАС, ІV о.) the three-member panel dismissed the applicant’s legal challenge. It examined in considerable detail the applicant’s actions in relation to the preparation of the lists of claims against company T., and concluded that she had indeed, through her fault, failed to complete that task within the statutory time-limit. On that basis, the court concluded that the Minister’s decision was not in breach of the substantive law. 16.  The court dismissed the applicant’s argument that the sanction was disproportionate in the following terms:
“By failing to meet the time-limit for drawing up and submitting the lists and the reports to the insolvency court, the applicant has committed the breaches alleged by the Minister of Justice in relation to her activity as a liquidator. The conditions laid down in section 655(3) of the [1991 Act] have been met and the administrative authority has lawfully exercised its power to strike the applicant off the list of persons qualified to act as liquidators. The decision to impose the heaviest sanction was within its competence and a matter of expediency, and the court is not competent to examine whether the severity of the sanction corresponds to the seriousness of the breaches committed. It should however be noted that the arguments in the application that the delay did not extinguish any creditors’ rights and that the breach was not therefore serious are unfounded. First, the statutory provision does not lay down a requirement that the breach should be ‘serious’. Secondly, the presentation of claims and their assessment first by the liquidator and then by the insolvency court is a key stage in insolvency proceedings and the starting point of all other stages in such proceedings. ... That is why the legislature has provided for strict time-limits.” 17.  The court went on to dismiss the applicant’s allegation that the Minister of Justice had failed to deal with her objections and comply with the applicable rules of procedure. 18.  The applicant appealed on points of law. She challenged the finding of the three-member panel that she had, through her fault, failed to meet the time-limit. She also argued that the three-member panel had erred in holding that the court was not competent to review the proportionality of the sanction imposed on her. When reviewing administrative decisions the courts were bound to quash them if they found that they were inconsistent with the object and purpose of the law, which was exactly her case: the Minister’s decision was inconsistent with the purpose of section 655(3) of the 1991 Act, which was to protect the public interest by disqualifying liquidators who, through a failure to abide by their duties, had imperilled or directly harmed the interests of the participants in insolvency proceedings. The 1991 Act made provision for lighter sanctions in its section 663 (see paragraph 27 below). The sanction envisaged in section 655(3) was the harshest among those capable of being imposed on a liquidator, because its effect was to deprive the person concerned of the capacity to serve as a liquidator of any company, which was clearly disproportionate to the seriousness of the breach imputed to the applicant. It was impermissible to resort to the most severe measure in relation to a mere failure to comply with a non-decisive time-limit that had not harmed anyone’s rights. 19.  A five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court heard the appeal on 28 January 2005. It admitted a document presented by the applicant. 20.  In a final judgment of 28 March 2005 (реш. № 2866 от 28 март 2005 г. по адм. д. № 10328/2004 г., ВАС, петчл. с-в), the five-member panel upheld the three-member panel’s judgment. It acknowledged that the applicant had been prevented from submitting the lists of claims of company T.’s creditors by the date indicated by the Minister of Justice, 8 May 2004, but considered that she could have done so by 14 June 2004. Thus, in submitting the list on 18 June 2004, she had still failed to comply with the statutory time-limit. 21.  The five-member panel went on to hold, in relation to the applicant’s argument concerning the proportionality of the sanction:
“It is the [Minister’s] right to determine what measures, in so far as they remain within what is provided for by law, he should take where the liquidator has breached his obligations. The allegations that the decision under challenge was inconsistent with the object and purpose of the law because section 655(3) of the [1991 Act] has a heavy punitive character, and that the lower court failed to take into account whether the decision was consistent with the object and purpose of the law, are therefore ill‑founded. The three-member panel gave detailed reasons on that point that this court shares and that it is unnecessary to repeat. It is well-established case-law that the question whether the severity of the sanction corresponds to the seriousness of the breach is not reviewable, not only in proceedings for judicial review of administrative action, but also in disciplinary proceedings under the Labour Code.” 22.  Lastly, the five-member panel found that the Minister of Justice had not breached the rules of procedure. In particular, he had apprised the applicant of the proceedings and had given her an opportunity to make representations.