GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

Published on 15 April 2024

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 40087/21
Ilia Georgiev GEORGIEV and Others
against Bulgaria
lodged on 17 May 2021
communicated on 25 March 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The nine applicants, all of Roma ethnic origin, hail from the village of Voyvodinovo. They fled from that village on 6 or 7 January 2019 as a result of protests against its Roma inhabitants by the rest of its population. The general circumstances of their case have been set out in Paketova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 17808/19 and 36972/19, §§ 5-87, 4 October 2022).

2.  The present application concerns an order, issued by the mayor on 16 January 2019, to demolish a building said to be inhabited by them.

3.  The first applicant sought judicial review of that order. In December 2019 the Plovdiv Administrative Court dismissed his claim (реш. № 2675 от 16.12.2019 г. по адм. д. № 294/2019 г., АдмС-Пловдив).

4.  The first applicant appealed against that judgment, but on 17 November 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld it (реш. № 14213 от 17.11.2020 г. по адм. д. № 2726/2020 г., ВАС, II о.).

5.  The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the demolition order was unlawful and unjustified. They also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that owing to the way in which the Bulgarian courts approached various aspects of their claim, the proceedings for judicial review of the order were not an effective remedy in respect of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention, and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts failed to engage with various arguments and items of evidence. Lastly, they complain under Article 14 of the Convention that the demolition order was in reality motivated by their Roma ethnic origin and that the courts failed to deal properly with that aspect of the case.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable? In particular, was the building to which the demolition order at issue in the present case related the applicants’ home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (in the light of, in particular, the rulings on the point by the Plovdiv Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, the arguments and evidence that the first applicant submitted before them in relation to that)?

2.  If so, was the order to demolish that building in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (see Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, §§ 107-44, 24 April 2012; Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, §§ 53-55, 21 April 2016; and Simonova v. Bulgaria, no. 30782/16, § 48, 11 April 2023)? In particular, was the buildings the applicants’ only home?

APPENDIX