FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION[Note1]
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 48459/99
by Z.G.
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) sitting on 21 September 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsS. Botoucharova, Judges,
withMrV. Berger, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 15 April 1998 by Z.G. against Bulgaria and registered on 31 May 1999 under file no. 48459/99;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Bulgarian national, born in Pernik and living in Sofia.
A.Particular circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s plot of land and his house were expropriated in 1982 and 1983 respectively by the local municipality. He was compensated with two apartments. In 1992 the Parliament adopted a law on the restitution of property expropriated under planning and other legislation (Закон за възстановяване собствеността върху някои отчуждени имоти по ЗТСУ, ЗПИНМ, ЗБНМ, ЗДИ и ЗС) (see below Relevant domestic law).
The applicant requested from the local municipality the restitution of his property on 4 June 1992. On 28 October 1992 his application was transmitted to the competent municipal department together with the relevant documents from the municipal archives. On 1 March and 23 November 1993 the applicant repeated his request. By letter of 11 March 1994 he was informed that his request had been processed, the delay being due to the large number of such applications. On 5 April 1994 the applicant’s request was rejected by the mаyor on the grounds that the project for which his property was expropriated, namely a road and a building, had been completed.
Within the relevant 14-days' time-limit the applicant appealed against that decision to the Sofia City Court (Софийски Градски Съд). An expert, who presented his findings on 10 November 1994, stated inter alia, that the road had been closed and the building had been demolished and that the claimed land constituted an independent plot according to the relevant regulations as in force in 1993. The Court held a hearing on 16 November 1994. Having found that the project for which the property had been expropriated was executed, on 17 November 1994 the Sofia City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
Within the relevant two-month’s time-limit the applicant submitted a petition for review to the Supreme Court (Върховeн cъд). The Supreme Court held a hearing on 20 October 1997. By judgment of 31 October 1997 it quashed the decision of the Sofia City Court on the grounds that the constructed building had been demolished and that the claimed land constituted an independent plot according to the relevant 1993 regulation and referred the case back for renewed examination.
The Sofia City Court adjourned the hearing three times: on 3 February, 5 May and 15 October 1998, as the other party, the representative of the municipality, failed to appear. On 13 November 1998 the Sofia City Court quashed the mayor’s refusal of 5 April 1994 and ordered the restitution of the applicant’s property. Upon the applicant’s requests in November and December 1998 this court corrected errors in its 1998 judgment.
On 15 December 1998 the municipality filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant alleges that on 16 March 1999, with delay of three months, the Sofia City Court transmitted the case-file to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court held a hearing on 13 May 1999. The proceedings are still pending.
B.Relevant domestic law
1992 Law on the restitution of property expropriated under planning and other legislation
This law provides that former owners, or their heirs, of real estate which had been expropriated pursuant to several particular pieces of legislation could request, within six months of the law's entry into force, the restoration of their rights under certain conditions.
In the case of plots of land where the building was demolished its restitution was possible only if the practical execution of the project for which the property had been expropriated had not commenced and the expropriated land had a sufficient surface to constitute an independent plot under the planning regulations (Section 1 paragraph 2). Also, the former owners were required to return what they had received in compensation (Sections 5‑7).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He complains that his property has been unlawfully expropriated in 1982 and 1983 and that he has not obtained its restitution.
The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the restitution proceedings were unreasonably lengthy.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains under Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the 1982 and 1983 expropriations of his property were unlawful and that he has not obtained its restitution.
This provision, insofar as relevant, provides 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 so far as the applicant complains of the expropriations which took place in 1982 and 1983, the Court recalls that the Convention entered into force in respect of Bulgaria on 7 September 1992, and that in accordance with the generally recognised principles of international law, the Court is only competent to examine complaints about violations of the Convention by virtue of acts, facts or decisions that have occurred after that date. The Court finds, therefore, that this part of the application is outside its competence ratione temporis and is therefore incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3.
In his application form, which was submitted before the judgment of the Sofia City Court of 13 November 1998, the applicant also complained that the courts refused to order the restitution of his property. The Court notes, however, that the said judgment recognised the applicant’s ownership over the claimed plot. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights in respect of the same property, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
2.The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the restitution proceedings, which are still pending.
In respect of the above complaint the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine its admissibility and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3(b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice thereof to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the restitution proceedings;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Do not forget to block text with Alt+B in order to avoid that the information in the highlighted zones disappears.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy