FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 40230/03
by Alexander Simeonov PETROV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Snejana Botoucharova,
Karel Jungwiert,
Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Rait Maruste,
Javier Borrego Borrego,
Mark Villiger, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 December 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Alexander Simeonov Petrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Sofia.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1949 a real estate was expropriated form the applicant’s parents. After the expropriation the real estate was given to an agricultural holding. In 1952 by an act for “exchange of properties” third parties (family T.) acquired title to the real estate which they contributed to an agricultural cooperative’s pool of land. In 1958 a new zoning plan entered into force and the plot became part of the territory designated for urban development. Thereafter, in accordance with the law, the agricultural cooperative sold the property to third parties (family G.).
On 24 February 1993 the applicant brought an action under the Law on the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property against family G. In a judgment of 22 June 1994 the Sofia District Court dismissed the action. The court reasoned that a building had been erected on the land and therefore under the restitution legislation it could not be restored to its former owners.
The applicant appealed. He claimed that the exchange whereby family T. had become owners of the disputed land was null and void and therefore the land could not have been contributed to the cooperative and the latter could not have validly disposed of it. He also questioned the validity of the contract of sale to family G. In a judgment of 17 July 1995 the Sofia City Court rejected the applicants’ arguments and upheld the lower court’s judgment.
The applicant appealed. In a judgment of 19 September 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgement of the Sofia City Court. It found that essential procedural rules had been breached and referred the case back to the lower court with instructions to clarify certain points of fact.
On 27 March 2002 the Sofia City Court rendered judgment. It dismissed the action, reasoning that even if it were established that the sale to family G. was void, the applicant would still not be entitled to restitution, as in that event family T. would have the claim. The court also held that the exchange of the properties had been effected by an administrative act which was not reviewable under section 7 of the Restitution Law.
The applicant appealed. In a final judgment of 10 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s judgment. It appears that while the case was pending before the Supreme Court of Cassation only one hearing was held.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the civil proceedings was excessive.
2. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 that the domestic courts had failed to properly examine some of the evidence in the case and had thus erred in establishing the facts.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the civil proceedings had been excessive. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of this complaint 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 complained under Article 6 § 1 that the domestic courts had failed to properly examine some of the evidence in the case and had thus erred in establishing the facts. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
In the light of all the material in its possession, and insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court 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 this complaint 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 complaint concerning the length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy