European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ilaria Konstantinova GEORGIEVA v Bulgaria - 33730/04 [2010] ECHR 1219 (6 July 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1219.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1219
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
33730/04
by Ilaria Konstantinova GEORGIEVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 July 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mirjana Lazarova
Trajkovska,
Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
Pavlina
Panova, ad hoc judge,
and Stephen
Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 September 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Ilaria Konstantinova Georgieva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Sofia. She was represented before the Court by Mr D. Radev, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms S. Atanasova, of the Ministry of Justice.
Judge Kalaydjieva, the judge elected in respect of Bulgaria, withdrew from sitting in the case. On 23 February 2009 the Government appointed in her stead Ms Pavlina Panova as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 of the Rules of the Court as in force at the time).
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1968 the applicant's husband bought from the Sofia municipality the second floor of a two-storey house which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1945.
In 1992 the heir of the pre-nationalisation owner of the house brought proceedings against the applicant's husband under section 7 of the Restitution Law. The applicant's husband died in 2000; the applicant inherited his property.
The proceedings ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 8 July 2003. The courts found that the contract whereby in 1968 the applicant's husband had bought the property had been defective and therefore null and void.
On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Supreme Court of Cassation to declare the 8 July 2003 judgment null and void on account of the participation of one of the judicial panel's members in a previous examination of the case, when the Supreme Court of Cassation had ordered remittal. Alternatively, she sought that the proceedings be reopened. On 17 March 2004 both requests were dismissed, the Supreme Court of Cassation finding that it was not competent to examine the alleged nullity of the earlier judgment and that, furthermore, there were no valid grounds to reopen the proceedings.
Immediately after the final judgment in her case, 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. In is unclear whether the applicant ever applied for such bonds as she has not informed the Court of any developments in this regard. In December 2008 she only informed the Court that she had not received bonds.
In spite of this, in 2007 the applicant requested the Sofia regional governor to be allowed to buy a State-owned dwelling, under a provision authorising the purchase of such dwellings with compensation bonds. The governor refused and forwarded her request to the Sofia mayor, who also refused to sell a municipally-owned dwelling.
In May 2008 the applicant vacated the property.
B. Relevant background facts, domestic law and practice
The 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 LAW
The Court is of the view that the complaint, which is of the type examined by it in Velikovi and Others (cited above) falls to be examined solely under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Government urged the Court to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, since the final judgment whereby the applicant's title had been found to be null and void had been given on 8 July 2003, more than six months before she had lodged the present application.
In response, the applicant contended that the six-month period in the case had started to run on 17 March 2004 when the Supreme Court of Cassation had dismissed her requests to declare the earlier judgment of 8 July 2003 null and void and to reopen the proceedings.
In several cases similar to Velikovi and Others the Court found that the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention had started to run after any issues concerning compensation had been settled (see Shoilekovi and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 61330/00, 66840/01 and 69155/01, 18 September 2007, Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42617/02, § 30, 26 February 2009). In another case, where the applicants had not applied for compensation bonds and there had been no other relevant developments concerning compensation, the Court found that the six-month time-limit had started to run from the date when the possibility for the applicants to seek bonds had expired (see Kayriakovi v. Bulgaria (no. 30945/04, §§ 23-29, 7 January 2010).
In the present case, the Court has not been informed whether the applicant had ever applied to receive compensation bonds, as she was entitled to after the judgment of 8 July 2003. In December 2008 she merely notified the Court that she had not received such bonds. Furthermore, in her response to the Government's objection that she had not complied with the six-month time-limit the applicant did not refer to any developments concerning compensation bonds; instead, she put forward arguments concerning her attempt to obtain the nullification of the 8 July 2003 judgment or a reopening. Nor does it transpire from the documents submitted that the applicant had ever applied for bonds.
On the basis of the evidence submitted to it, the Court concludes therefore that the applicant failed to seek compensation bonds. This conclusion is not inconsistent with the applicant's request to buy a State or municipally-owned dwelling in 2007, since the documents presented do not indicate that the applicant did indeed possess bonds awarded in relation to the property at issue in the present case.
Furthermore, in the case at hand there were no other relevant developments concerning compensation. In particular, the applicant's request for declaring the judgment of 8 July 2003 null and void and her request for reopening of the restitution proceedings did not concern any possible compensation from the State. Nor did her request to buy a State or municipally-owned dwelling in 2007 amount to a relevant development concerning compensation, because, as discussed above, it was of no consequence.
Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to apply the approach it adopted in the case of Kayriakovi (cited above) It notes that the final judgment under section 7 of the Restitution Law in the applicant's case was given on 8 July 2003 and that the two-month time-limit for the applicant to apply for bonds expired on 8 September 2003. The six-month time limit started running on this date. The present complaint was introduced on 16 September 2004. It follows that it has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of 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.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen Phillips Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President