European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Elena MITEVA v Bulgaria - 60805/00 [2007] ECHR 890 (9 October 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/890.html
Cite as: [2007] ECHR 890
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
60805/00
by Elena MITEVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mrs M.
Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mrs R. Jaeger,
Mr M.
Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 February 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Elena Todorova Miteva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1925 and lives in Varna.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1968 the applicant and her husband purchased from the State a three-room apartment of approximately 76 square metres.
The apartment had become State owned by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.
In 1993, shortly after the adoption of the Restitution Law, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the applicant and her husband.
The applicant’s husband passed away in June 1996. She was his sole heir and the proceedings continued against her.
On 29 June 1996 the Varna District Court found that the 1968 transaction had been null and void and granted the claim. On appeal, on 25 July 1997 the Varna Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.
The courts found that the 1968 contract had been signed by a deputy to the mayor instead of the mayor (председателят на изпълнителния комитет на районния народен съвет) and that the file did not contain the requisite approval by the Minister of Architecture and Building Planning. The courts also found that the price of the apartment had not been determined correctly by the administration.
In 1999 the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings, stating that she had not been duly summoned for the Regional Court’s hearing held on 2 July 1997. She explained that she had received summons for that hearing but several days after that she had also received a notice that the proceedings had been suspended pending the submission of an official document about her late husband’s heirs. Having concluded that the hearing listed for 2 July 1997 had been cancelled, she had not appeared.
By judgment of 22 July 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the request for reopening. The court found that the applicant had been validly summoned and should have appeared at the hearing.
The applicant sought review of the judgment of 22 July 1999 which was refused by letter of 30 December 1999 as decisions rejecting requests for reopening were not amenable to review.
In 2000, it became possible for the applicant to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicant did not avail herself of that opportunity within the relevant time-limit. She applied for bonds in June 2007 but was informed by letter of 5 July 2007 of the Varna Regional Governor that her request was time-barred.
The applicant did not leave the property voluntarily. In 1998 the restored owners instituted enforcement proceedings. The applicant was evicted on 16 August 2006.
On 15 November 2006 the applicant was granted the tenancy of a two-room municipal apartment in Varna.
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.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained, relying on Article 8 of the Convention, that she had been deprived of her home through an arbitrary application of the Restitution Law and had not received compensation.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that she had been unable to take part in the proceedings before the Regional Court.
THE LAW
The Court considers that the above complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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.”
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.
Article 6 § 1 reads, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court notes that the final domestic decision concerning the applicant’s complaint was that of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 22 July 1999 and that the application was introduced on 4 February 2000, after the expiry of the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Contrary to the applicant’s view, that time-limit did not run from 30 December 1999, the date on which she was informed that no appeal lied against the judgment of 22 July 1999. Since no such appeal was provided for under domestic law, the fact that she submitted an appeal is irrelevant for purposes of 35 § 1 of the Convention.
It follows that the remainder of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning the application of the Restitution Law and related legislation in her case;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President