Communicated on 23 September 2020
Published on 12 October 2020
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 56681/15
Darinka Milusheva HRISTOVA and Others
against Bulgaria
lodged on 10 November 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms S. Margaritova-Vuchkova, a lawyer practicing in Sofia.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants were the owners of a plot of land on the outskirts of Sofia, on the strength of a restitution decision issued on 14 July 1994. The plot, measuring 1,097 square metres, was described in the decision at issue as a third-category “meadow”.
In a decision of 21 December 2013 the Council of Ministers expropriated 987 square metres of the applicants’ land, as well as other land in the area, for the construction of a section of the ring road around Sofia. The decision stated that the applicants would receive monetary compensation in the amount of 924 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent to 473 euros (EUR), or BGN 0.94 (EUR 0.48) per square metre. The compensation was calculated in accordance with the Regulation on the calculation of the value of agricultural land.
The applicants applied for a judicial review of the expropriation decision. In their initial application they argued that the compensation awarded to them was too low.
In additional submissions the applicants contested the decision in its entirety, considering the expropriation unlawful. They pointed out that the authorities’ decision to construct the section of the ring road had been taken years earlier, and that domestic law stipulated that the necessary expropriations be carried out within a certain time-limit after such a decision, which had allegedly expired in 2011.
The Supreme Administrative Court appointed an expert to calculate the market value of the applicants’ land. The expert submitted a report on 29 September 2014. She considered that the expropriated land had been urbanized and described three transactions with plots she considered comparable within the meaning of the State Property Act 1996 (hereinafter “the 1996 Act”), sold for prices ranging between BGN 2.88 (EUR 1.47) and BGN 546 (EUR 280) per square metre. She referred in addition to a contract concerning agricultural land in the same zone, sold for the equivalent of BGN 0.43 (EUR 0.22) per square metre. The expert also calculated the land’s value in accordance with section 32(3)(1) of the 1996 Act, namely two times the value for taxation purposes, which amounted to the equivalent of BGN 38 (EUR 19.4) per square metre.
The applicants contested the expert’s reliance on a contract concerning land sold for BGN 2.88 (EUR 1.47), considering the price unrealistically low. They argued that the contract at issue was fictitious, as it had been concluded between an insolvent company and the company owner’s daughter. They pointed out that proceedings were pending whereby the State, acting as a creditor, was seeking to have the sale declared null and void.
The Supreme Administrative Court gave a judgment on 11 May 2015. It stated that the lawfulness of the expropriation of the applicants’ land was not the subject of contestation. As to the amount of compensation, it found that the expropriated land had been agricultural land within the urbanized territory, and that only two of the transactions presented by the expert concerned such land and were to be taken into account – the ones where land had been sold for BGN 2.88 (EUR 1.47) and BGN 0.43 (EUR 0.22) per square metre respectively. As regards the applicants’ arguments concerning the former of these transactions, the Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that it was not for it to establish that transaction’s nullity, and only a final judgment declaring it null and void could justify its exclusion from the list of relevant transactions. On the basis of the two contracts thus taken into consideration, the value of the applicants’ expropriated land was BGN 2,112 (EUR 1,080), the equivalent of BGN 2.14 (EUR 1.1) per square mere, and that was the amount that was to be awarded.
The applicants submit two judgments on applications for judicial review concerning expropriations on the basis of the Council of Ministers’ decision of 21 December 2013, where the Supreme Administrative Court refused to take into account, for the purposes of calculating the expropriated plots’ market value, the contract discussed above where land had been sold for BGN 2.88 (EUR 1.47) per square metre. It was noted that, since the contract had been concluded between relatives, it was not a typical transaction indicative of a market value (see Решение № 9170 от 31.07.2015 г. по адм. дело № 1696/2014 г., ВАС, III o .; Решение № 6806 от 9.06.2015 г. по адм. дело № 1524/2014 г., ВАС, III o.).
The applicants state in addition that, as concerns many plots neighbouring theirs or in its vicinity, expropriated on the strength of the decision of 21 December 2013, the Supreme Administrative Court awarded the expropriated owners compensation under section 32(3)(1) of the 1996 Act, namely two times the value for taxation purposes. They submit four such judgments – the ones referred to in the previous paragraph and two others (see Решение № 4464 от 22.04.2015 г. по адм. дело № 1599/2014 г., ВАС, III o .; Решение № 5852 от 21.05.2015 г. по адм. дело № 5170/2014 г., ВАС, III o.). In those cases the Supreme Administrative Court awarded the claimants between BGN 44 (EUR 22.5) and BGN 50 (EUR 25.5) per square metre.Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice have been described in Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 66581/12 and 25054/15, § 23-38, 14 May 2020).
Under section 32(3)(1) of the 1996 Act, the compensation for properties situated in urban territories, where their market value cannot be established, equals two times their value for taxation purposes, calculated in accordance with the rules contained in the Local Taxes and Tolls Act (Закон за местните данъци и такси).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain, relying of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as well as Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, that the compensation awarded when their land was expropriated was too low.
The applicants complain furthermore under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Administrative Court failed to examine their argument on the alleged unlawfulness of the expropriation of their land.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the deprivation of the applicants’ of their property comply with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, was the compensation awarded to them reasonably related to their expropriated land’s value (see Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 66581/12 and 25054/15, 14 May 2020)?
2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations? In particular, did the Supreme Administrative Court fail to respond to their argument relative to the lawfulness of the expropriation of their land, and if so, was its failure in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, §§ 29-30, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303‑A; Idakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 33681/05, §§ 48-54, 21 June 2011)?
APPENDIX
No.
Applicant’s Name
Birth year
Nationality
Place of residence
1
Darinka Milusheva HRISTOVA
1938
Bulgarian
Sofia
2
Violeta Dimitrova KOSTOVA
1955
Bulgarian
Sofia
3
Asen Petrov MILUSHEV
1965
Bulgarian
Sofia
4
Momchil Petrov MILUSHEV
1974
Bulgarian
Sofia
5
Stoycho Tsvetanov STOYCHEV
1931
Bulgarian
Sofia
6
Yordan Tsvetanov STOYCHEV
1934
Bulgarian
Sofia
7
Damyanka Tsvetanova STOYCHEVA
1927
Bulgarian
Sofia
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy