Published on 24 June 2024
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 38993/21 and 16430/22
Tatyana Georgieva GIGOVA and Mario Lyubenov GIGOV against Bulgaria
and Todorka Berova DIMITROVA and Others against Bulgaria
lodged on 28 July 2021 and 23 March 2022 respectively
communicated on 5 June 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern urban planning affecting the applicants’ property rights.
The applicants are the owners of different plots of land on the territory of Sofia, which in 2006 and 2009 were allocated for parks and gardens under the General Urban Development Plan of the city. After the allocation the applicants have been unable to construct upon or otherwise develop their land. Under the appliable legislation, land earmarked for parks and green areas is to be expropriated by the municipal authorities. However, no expropriation procedures had been initiated by the time of the lodging of the applications in 2021-22, nor had the municipal authorities even adopted detailed urban plans of the respective neighbourhoods, which is a preliminary step in that regard. The applicants attempted unsuccessfully to obtain alternative solutions, such as exchanging their plots against other municipally-owned plots, or receiving a permission to develop the land within the allocated purpose.
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy impossibility to use their land, reserved for the creation of green zones in Sofia, coupled with the failure of the authorities to expropriate the land or to agree to an alternative solution. The applicants contend that the situation at issue is bound to continue many more years. They complain in addition under Article 13 of the Convention about the unavailability of effective domestic remedies to defend their property rights.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does the lengthy impossibility for the applicants to use their plots of land, reserved under the General Urban Development Plan of Sofia for the creation of parks and gardens, and the failure of the municipal authorities during this period of time to initiate expropriation procedures or to agree to an alternative solution, amount to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, does the interference with the applicants’ rights impose on them an excessive individual burden (see, for example, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 66-74, Series A no. 52, Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, §§ 65-80, 29 March 2011, and Petar Matas v. Croatia, no. 40581/12, §§ 36-48, 4 October 2016?
2. Do the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
List of applications
No.
App. no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
38993/21
Gigovi v. Bulgaria
28/07/2021
Tatyana Georgieva GIGOVA
1967
Sofia
Bulgarian
Mario Lyubenov GIGOV
1965
Sofia
Bulgarian
Mihail EKIMDZHIEV
Katina BONCHEVA
Milena DOKOVA-KOSTADINOVA
2.
16430/22
Dimitrova and Others v. Bulgaria
23/03/2022
Todorka Berova DIMITROVA
1954
Targovishte
Bulgarian
Ivan Dimitrov MINCHEV
1947
Sofia
Bulgarian
Ventsislav Ivanov SPASOV
1981
Sofia
Bulgarian
Anna Todorova TSANOVA
1943
Sofia
Bulgarian
Rumen Georgiev VUCHEV
1963
Sofia
Bulgarian
Valentin Georgiev VUCHEV
1960
Sofia
Bulgarian
Vasil Stoyanov VUCHEV
1950
Sofia
Bulgarian
Yordan Stoyanov VUCHEV
1947
Sofia
Bulgarian
Tsvetanka Andreeva VUCHEVA
1935
Sofia
Bulgarian
Yordanka Berova VUCHEVA
1950
Sofia
Bulgarian
Aleksandar KASHAMOV