FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 63813/00
by Veneta Niagolova LAZAROVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
MrJ.S. Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Veneta Niagolova Lazarova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Plovdiv. She is represented before the Court by Mr M. Neikov, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1984 the applicant and her husband bought a flat from the Plovdiv municipality which had been nationalised during the communist regime.
On 17 December 1992 the former owners of the real estate brought proceedings against the applicant before the Plovdiv District Court under section 7 of the Restitution Law.
In a decision of 26 April 1993 the Plovdiv District Court terminated the proceedings on the ground that the statement of claim was submitted by a proxy who had not been granted a valid power of attorney by the claimants (the former owners). They appealed and on an unknown date the Plovdiv Regional Court reversed that decision and sent the case back to the district court with instruction to continue proceedings.
It appears that the next hearing was held on 2 December 1993 and was adjourned for 24 February 1994. It appears from the applicant’s submissions and the documents available that the scheduled hearing did not take place. It appears that between 2 December 1993 and 17 April 1995 the proceedings remained dormant.
Between 17 April 1995 and 8 April 1998 sixteen hearings were held. It appears that at least ten hearings were adjourned as there were problems with the preparation of the necessary export reports. However, it transpires from the minutes of the hearings that the reason for the adjournments was not the complexity of the issues address by those reports but organisational problems with the appointment of the experts and the determination of their fees.
In a judgment of 21 July 1998 the Plovdiv District Court dismissed the action.
On 18 August 1998 the plaintiffs appealed.
By a judgment of 8 March 1999 the Plovdiv Regional Court, following a hearing held on 16 February 1999, reversed the lower court’s judgment. The court found, inter alia, that the applicant’s husband, who had been a tenant in the flat before buying it, had illegally occupied an additional room. Also, the apartment was bigger than permitted by law for a four-member family as the applicant’s at the relevant time. The court declared the 1984 sale null and void and restored the plaintiffs’ ownership rights.
On 5 April 1999 the applicant submitted a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation (“SCC”). In December 1999 the SCC held a hearing. In a judgment of 3 April 2000 the SCC upheld the Plovdiv Regional Court’s judgment.
It appears that the applicant did not seek compensation through the bonds compensation scheme as she could have.
B. Relevant background domestic law
The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, 15 March 2007.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 that the length of the civil proceedings had been excessive and that she did not have effective remedies in that respect.
2. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that her flat had been arbitrarily expropriated by the State without a compensation reasonably related to its price.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the civil proceedings had been excessive and under Article 13 that she had no effective remedies. Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant further complained that her flat had been expropriated by the State in an arbitrary way without compensation reasonably related to the price of the real estate. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention which reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
In the light of all the material in its possession, and insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court, having regard to the criteria set out in its Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria judgment (cited above), finds that the above complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
It follows that the remainder of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of the civil proceedings and the alleged lack of effective remedies related thereto;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy