Communicated on 23 May 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 58043/10 Vladimir Slavov VLADIMIROV against Bulgaria lodged on 23 September 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Slavov Vladimirov , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1945 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 December 1995 the Varna municipality ’ s chief architect issued a permit to the applicant for the construction of a hotel and a restaurant. By August 1997 the applicant had erected a solid building measuring about 250 square metres. The works continued thereafter and on 15 March 2004 the chief architect certified that the building was fit for operation. In view of the fact that the terrain on which the hotel stood was prone to landslides, the construction works comprised the necessary precautionary measures and, in particular, terraced design and building, reinforced foundations and a reinforced support wall on the side of the road.

In the meantime, landslide processes had started on the plot of land hosting the applicant ’ s building. The first signs of land sliding had appeared in 1998 as established in subsequent expert reports. Following progression of the landslide, in 2005 the applicant ’ s building suffered damage to its structure and in 2008 it collapsed altogether.

On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant brought judicial proceedings for damages against the Ministry for Regional Development under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 1988. He sought compensation for the failure of the authorities to undertake any measures aimed at thwarting the landslide processes or limiting their destructive effects. The Varna Administrative Court rejected his claim on 6 November 2009. It established that the ministry in question had unlawfully omitted to take preventive measures with a view to controlling the landslide and avoiding accidents and damage to property. In particular, the analyses and reports it had ordered in this connection were solely preparatory steps as opposed to effective measures for limiting the destructive processes which the ministry owed under section 96 of the Territorial Organisation Act. However, the landslide had not been a typical and direct consequence of the Ministry ’ s conduct, seeing that it could have happened irrespective of whether the latter unlawfully omitted to act or whether it effectively pursued actions for countering the landslide. The court concluded that there had been no causal link between the damage to the applicant ’ s building and the Ministry ’ s unlawful failure to act.

These findings were fully upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 13 May 2010 in a final decision.

B. Relevant domestic law

According to section 96 of the Territorial Organisation Act 2001, terrains prone to land slides are subject to detailed development plans which include engineering and geological and hydrogeological studies concerning the overall stability and sustainability of the territory and its suitability for construction. In addition, geo-protective measures have to be put in place for stabilising terrains prone to land sliding.

The relevant provisions concerning claims for damages against the State have been set out, among others, in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Guseva v. Bulgaria , no. 6987/07 , § 29, 1 7 February 2015.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the authorities having failed to take measures to prevent damage to his property.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Bearing in mind the State ’ s wide margin of appreciation in the choice of means to comply with their positive obligations and other principles governing State ’ s liability for breach of positive obligations developed by the Court ’ s case-law ( Budayeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, § 182, ECHR 2008 (extracts)) did the authorities discharge their positive obligation to protect the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

2. Has there been a failure on behalf of authorities to take preventive operational measures to mitigate the risk of damage to the applicant ’ s property as a result of landslides? The Government are requested to submit information concerning the legislative and administrative framework for the deterrence against natural hazards and to comment on whether at the material time it was being effectively implemented.