Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 75025/17 Vasilka Asenova UGRINOVA against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Tim Eicke, President, Faris Vehabović, Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges, and Ludmila Milanova, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 75025/17) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 13 October 2017 by a Bulgarian national, Ms Vasilka Asenova Ugrinova (“the applicant”), who was born in 1942 and lives in Sofia, and was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning delays in providing compensation to the applicant for her expropriated property to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms I. Stancheva-Chinova of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case is of the type examined in Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 42908/98 and 3 others, 9 June 2005) and a number of follow-up cases concerning lengthy delays in providing compensation to the applicants for properties of theirs which had been expropriated, usually in the 1980s, for the purpose of urban development. In the present case, a house in Sofia owned by the applicant had been expropriated in 1987 for the construction of flats for staff of the Ministry of the Interior (hereinafter “the Ministry”). A four-room flat in one of the future buildings was allotted to the applicant. However, the building was never constructed. The compensation due to the applicant was provided in 2020, when she received a State-owned flat in another building.

2. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention of the delays in the compensation proceedings.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

3. The Government argued that the applicant had herself been to blame for the delay in receiving compensation. As early as in 2001 or 2002 she had been contacted by the Ministry and told that the building where her future flat was to be located would not be constructed, and that alternative solutions would be proposed. In the years that followed, the applicant had on several occasions been offered other flats, but she had refused them. In 2005 the Ministry had even invited her to choose a flat available for sale on the property market which would be bought for her, but the arrangement had fallen through after the flat chosen had been withdrawn by the seller and the applicant had not chosen another one. The Ministry had then proposed other flats as compensation, but the applicant had again refused. She had stated that she preferred to receive two smaller flats instead of one large one, and on numerous occasions had reiterated that preference, even though she had been informed that such a change in the compensation initially allotted was considered to be against the law. After some years of further discussion and proposals on the part of the Ministry, in 2019 the applicant had finally agreed to receive in compensation the State-owned flat where she had been housed after the expropriation of her property. The transfer of property became final in 2020.

4. On the basis of the above, the Government argued that the authorities had not been to blame for the delay in affording compensation to the applicant. They had acted in good time and with an obvious desire to find a solution and fulfil their obligation to provide a flat to the applicant. Different solutions had been sought and proposed over the years, and had been continually rejected by the applicant.

5. In contesting the above argument, the applicant contended that, until 2009, she had believed that the building in which the flat initially allotted to her was to be located would be constructed; that she preferred to live in the neighbourhood where the flat allotted to her in 1987 was to be located; that she had cooperated with the authorities and had refused the flats offered to her because they were not appropriate, or were located in neighbourhoods in which she did not wish to live; and that she had preferred to receive two smaller flats because her children had in the meantime grown up and a large dwelling did not correspond to her needs.

6. However, the Court observes that a letter was sent by the Ministry to the applicant in November 2002 informing her that the building initially planned would not be constructed; thus, regardless of any previous contact (which, according to the Government, had been informal) with the Ministry, the Court considers that the applicant became aware at that moment that an alternative solution would be proposed. In addition, the applicant’s assertion that none of the numerous properties offered to her had been appropriate is unconvincing; she was even asked herself to choose a flat which would be bought for her, but she failed to pursue that path. As the Government pointed out, if the size or location of the flats offered did not suit the applicant, there was nothing to prevent her from selling the property given to her in compensation and buying a new and more appropriate one.

7. Consequently, the Court does not consider that the present case is similar to Kirilova and Others , in which it criticised the national authorities for their passive attitude and open reluctance to search for an appropriate solution and fulfil their obligation to provide flats to the applicants (see Kirilova and Others , cited above, § 121; see also, by way of example, Antonovi v. Bulgaria , no. 20827/02, § 30, 1 October 2009, and Dobrodolska v. Bulgaria [Committee], no. 34272/09, § 22, 13 October 2016). In the case at hand, after 2001 or 2002 the Ministry did take an active stance, searching continuously for solutions. It was the applicant who apparently failed over many years to respond to these efforts in a meaningful manner, and the delays in the compensation procedure after 2001 or 2002 cannot therefore be blamed on the authorities and on any unwillingness on their part to resolve the problem.

8. It is true that by 2001 or 2002, when the Ministry contacted the applicant to propose different flats, the provision of the compensation due to her had already been delayed for several years. Although her entitlement to receive a flat arose in the 1980s, it is only the period after 7 September 1992, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Bulgaria, which is to be taken into account in that regard (see Kirilova and Others , cited above, § 86). The initial delay was therefore nine or ten years. However, the parties have provided no details about any relevant developments during that period. In view of this lack of information, and in addition of the fact that the 1990s in Bulgaria were a period of significant economic turmoil (see, for a recent reference to that circumstance, Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, § 202, 13 July 2021), the Court cannot conclude that the authorities unjustifiably failed to discharge their obligations vis-à-vis the applicant.

9. In view of the above and in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of her rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 June 2022.

Ludmila Milanova Tim Eicke Acting Deputy Registrar President

Menu

UGRINOVA v. BULGARIA

UGRINOVA v. BULGARIA