FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 20568/02
by Raina Vasileva MARINOVA and Maria Stefanova RADEVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrR. Maruste,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 May 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mrs Raina Vasileva Marinova, and Mrs Maria Stefanova Radeva, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1925 and 1946 respectively and live in Sofia.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In 1959 Mr M., the first applicant’s husband and the second applicant’s father, bought from the Sofia municipality a four-room flat which had been nationalised in 1948. He made a 40% down-payment and paid the remainder of the price within the following years.
On 22 February 1993 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owner of the apartment brought proceedings against the applicants before the Sofia District Court under section 7 of the Restitution Law.
On 11 November 1997 the Sofia District Court dismissed the action.
In a judgment of 19 January 1999 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.
The plaintiffs appealed. In a judgment of 19 October 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation reversed and referred the case back to the Sofia City Court.
On 30 June 2000 the Sofia City Court gave judgment. The court found that at the relevant time the applicants’ four-member family had been entitled to buy a two-room flat and not a four-room flat. The applicants had acquired the flat in material breach of the substantive housing regulations and the sale was therefore declared null and void. The applicants were ordered to surrender possession of the flat to the plaintiffs.
The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation.
The only hearing held while the case was pending before the Supreme Court of Cassation took place on 8 November 2001.
In a judgment of 27 November 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the Sofia City Court’s judgment. The court found that the applicant’s family had four members and that according to the law in force at the material time they had been entitled to acquire a two-room flat.
In 2000, it became possible for the applicants to obtain partial compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers.
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 applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 that the length of the civil proceedings had been excessive and that they did not have effective remedies in that respect.
2. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their flat had been arbitrarily expropriated by the State without a compensation reasonably related to the price of the real estate and that as a result of the expropriation their right to a home under Article 8 had been violated.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the civil proceedings had been excessive and under Article 13 that they 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 applicants further complained that their flat had been expropriated by the State in an arbitrary way without compensation reasonably related to the price of the real estate and that as a result of the expropriation their right to a home had been violated. 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 applicants’ complaints concerning the length of the civil proceedings and the alleged lack of effective remedies related thereto;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy