European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KOPRINAROVI v Bulgaria - 57176/00 [2007] ECHR 811 (18 September 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/811.html
Cite as: [2007] ECHR 811
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
57176/00
by KOPRINAROVI
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr J.
Borrego Borrego,
Mrs R. Jaeger,
Mr M. Villiger, judges,
and
Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 November 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Evgenia Petrova Koprinarova and her daughter Ms Zinaida Krasteva Koprinarova, are Bulgarian nationals born in 1920 and 1945 respectively. They live in Plovdiv. Before the Court, they were represented by Mr D. Marinov, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In 1958 Mr Koprinarov, whom the applicants inherited later, purchased from the State one storey of a three-storey house in Plovdiv. The property’s surface was 109 square metres. The property had belonged to a private person until the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following several years.
After the adoption of the Restitution Law (ЗВСОНИ) in 1992, on an unspecified date towards the end of 1992 the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the applicants.
The case went twice through the court system. The Plovdiv District Court decided by judgment of 13 January 1994 which was upheld on appeal by the Plovdiv Regional Court on 20 June 1994. The case was then examined by the Supreme Court which quashed the lower courts’ judgments on 28 December 1996 and remitted the case for a fresh examination by the Plovdiv Regional Court. That court examined the case afresh and delivered its judgment on 14 June 1998. Upon the applicants’ cassation appeal, the Supreme Court of Cassation gave final judgment on 26 July 1999.
The courts examined and dismissed a number of allegations made by the plaintiffs in respect of alleged breaches of the housing regulations and other legal provisions as in force in 1958.
The courts found, however, that a relevant document in the file concerning the 1958 transaction – approval by the Minister of Public Construction – had been signed by a Head of Department in the Ministry, not by the Minister personally. It followed that the person whom the applicants had inherited had obtained the property unlawfully. The applicants’ title was therefore null and void and they were ordered to vacate the property.
The applicants were evicted from the property on 17 September 2001. The eviction was conducted in the presence of special counsel for the applicants, appointed by the relevant court on the basis that the applicants had not been found at their address and the summonses sent had been repeatedly returned undelivered. The applicants appealed against the acts of the enforcement judge arguing, inter alia, that they had never changed their address and that their belongings had been damaged. The appeals were unsuccessful. The courts noted that the applicants had not been found at the address they had indicated and that therefore there had not been procedural violations. Also, the applicants had failed to collect their belongings for more than a month and had thus brought about the damage complained of.
Following their eviction, the applicants wrote repeatedly to the municipal authorities asking for a municipal apartment for rent but did not receive a reply.
On an unspecified date the applicants brought an action against the Plovdiv Municipality and the Ministry of Public Construction and Regional Development seeking compensation for the fact that they had lost their property owing to an administrative error committed by the defendant bodies in 1958. The claim was rejected by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 27 June 2006 on the grounds that the relevant legislation – the State Responsibility for Damage Act 1989 – did not apply retrospectively and that the law provided for a special compensation scheme by bonds in cases as the applicants’.
In 2000, it became possible for the applicants to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants have not availed themselves of that opportunity. It is unclear whether they can still apply for compensation bonds.
B. Relevant background facts, domestic law and practice
The remaining 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.
Shortly after the adoption of that judgment, on 8 May 2007 the Government published regulations implementing section 7(3) of the Restitution law (State Gazette no. 37 of May 2007). The regulations enable persons currently in possession of housing compensation bonds to obtain payment at face value from the Ministry of Finance.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13, that they had been deprived of their property arbitrarily, through no fault of theirs and without adequate compensation.
The applicants also complained under Article 6 in respect of the length of the restitution proceedings.
The applicants complained, relying on Articles 8 and 13, that their eviction from the property in 2001 had been unlawful and that no effective remedies existed in this respect.
THE LAW
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.
In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the above complaints are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention concerning the application of the Restitution Law and related legislation in their case;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President