ALEKSIEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

Published on 15 April 2024

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 30915/23
Ani Milanova ALEKSIEVA and Others
against Bulgaria
lodged on 9 August 2023
communicated on 28 March 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  All fifty-six applicants are of Roma ethnic origin; fourteen of them are minors. They all lived in a shantytown in Orlandovtsi, a neighbourhood at the north-eastern outskirts of Sofia, which has apparently been inhabited by them or their ancestors since the 1950s.

2.  On 16 June 2023 the shantytown was visited by municipal officials who put up notices that all illegal buildings in it would be demolished. On 21 June 2023 the local mayor and the head of the local building-control authority came to the shantytown to earmark the buildings due to be pulled down, but refused to give any information to the inhabitants.

3.  In late June 2023 fourteen applicants asked the Sofia City Administrative Court to enjoin the authorities not to evict them from their homes and not to demolish those homes. In fourteen decisions given between 28 June and 3 August 2023, that court dismissed the applications, on the basis that there was no evidence that the authorities intended to demolish specifically buildings inhabited by the applicants. Three applicants appealed against the decisions in their cases, but on 11, 12 and 13 July 2023 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld those decisions.

4.  On 4 August 2023 two applicants again asked the Sofia City Administrative Court to enjoin the authorities not to demolish their homes. On 8 August 2023 the court dismissed the application, chiefly on the basis that there was no indication that the authorities intended to demolish those buildings. The two applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, but on 25 October 2023 it upheld the lower court’s decision.

5.  On 9 and 10 August 2023 the authorities demolished the houses of most applicants; it appears that only three of those remained intact. They did so on the basis of fifty-seven demolition orders, all issued by the chief architect of Sofia on 25 July 2023, pursuant to an inspection carried out by municipal officials on 7 July 2023, and addressed to the local mayor. None of the applicants had been served with copies of those orders or involved otherwise in the proceedings in which they had been issued.

6.  On 9 August 2023, while the demolition was under way, thirteen applicants again asked the Sofia City Administrative Court to enjoin the authorities not to demolish their homes. In thirteen decisions given on 11 August 2023, that court refused to examine (and in one case dismissed) the applications, on the basis that (a) the applicants had failed to specify the buildings in respect of which they were seeking injunctions, and that (b) the authorities had acted on the basis of demolition orders, which meant that their actions should have been challenged by way of claims for judicial review of the enforcement of those orders rather than by way of injunction applications. Twelve applicants appealed against the decisions in their cases, but in twelve decisions given on 7 and 8 September 2023 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld those decisions.

7.  Meanwhile, between 4 and 15 August 2023 some applicants sought judicial review of some of the above-mentioned demolition orders (of which they had managed to learn following enquiries by their lawyer). They also asked the Sofia City Administrative Court to stay the orders’ enforcement. In three decisions given respectively on 10, 11 and 15 August 2023, that court refused to examine the stay applications. It appears that the main judicial review proceedings are still ongoing.

8.  The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, of the manner in which the authorities ordered and carried out the demolition of their homes. They also complain of that demolition under Article 8 of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. They further complain of the demolition and of the manner in which it was carried out, including the loss of personal property resulting from it, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They in addition complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have effective remedies to protect their rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were placed in a situation in which they could not have their applications for injunctions against the authorities not to demolish their homes duly examined by the courts.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Was the manner in which the authorities carried out the demolition of the applicants’ homes in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, alone or read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention?

2.  Was that demolition in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, alone or read in conjunction with Article 14? In particular, was it “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society” to attain a legitimate aim?

3.  Was the manner in which the demolition was carried out in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

4.  Did the applicants have effective remedies in respect of the alleged breaches of their rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

5.  Were the applicants able to obtain effective access to a court in relation to the demolition of their homes, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

APPENDIX