PAKETOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

Published on 15 April 2024

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 4152/20
Nasko Iliev PAKETOV and Others
against Bulgaria
lodged on 10 January 2020
communicated on 25 March 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The five 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) – in which they were, however, not applicants.

2.  The buildings in which the applicants say they were living were demolished on 10 January 2019 on the basis of orders issued by the mayor.

3.  In February 2019 the first, second and fifth applicants sought judicial review of the enforcement of those orders. In two final judgments dated 11 July 2019 (реш. № 1522 от 11.07.2019 г. по адм. д. № 513/2019 г., АдмС-Пловдив, and реш. № 1524 от 11.07.2019 г. по адм. д. № 485/2019 г., АдмС-Пловдив), the Plovdiv Administrative Court dismissed the claims of the first and second applicants. In a final judgment dated 11 December 2019 (реш. № 2589 от 11.12.2019 г. по адм. д. № 512/2019 г., АдмС-Пловдив), it dismissed the claim of the fifth applicant.

4.  In March 2019 the first, second, third and fifth applicant sought judicial review of the orders themselves. In March 2020 the Plovdiv Administrative Court dismissed their claim (реш. № 599 от 10.03.2020 г. по адм. д. № 1146/2019 г., АдмС-Пловдив). The applicants appealed against that judgment, but on 9 December 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld it (реш. № 15210 от 09.12.2020 г. по адм. д. № 6832/2020 г., ВАС, II о.).

5.  The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that they were forced to leave their homes, were subjected to extreme racial discrimination, and were suddenly deprived of their homes and property, and that the authorities did not investigate that matter effectively. They also complain under Article 8 of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that they were forced to leave their homes, which were then demolished. They further complain that the demolition was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. Lastly, they complain under Article 18 of the Convention that their rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were restricted for purposes not prescribed by the Convention, namely to assuage the lust for revenge of the anti-Roma protesters for the violent incident which had sparked the protests in January 2019.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Was the manner in which the authorities handled the situation in Voyvodinovo unfolding from 6 January 2019 onwards in breach of the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see Paketova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 17808/19 and 36972/19, §§ 148-68, 4 October 2022)?

2.  Were the buildings to which the demolition orders related the applicants’ homes, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (in the light of, in particular, the rulings of the Bulgarian courts on the point and the arguments and evidence that the applicants submitted before them in relation to that)?

3.  If so, were the orders to demolish those buildings 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, were those buildings the applicants’ only homes?

4.  Did the alleged interference with the applicants’ rights pursue, solely or predominantly, a purpose other than those prescribed in the Convention, contrary to Article 18 (see, mutatis mutandis, Kogan and Others v. Russia, no. 54003/20, §§ 67-78, 7 March 2023)?

APPENDIX