Communicated on 15 September 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 3401/09 Dimitar Pavlov YORDANOV against Bulgaria lodged on 17 December 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dimitar Pavlov Yordanov , is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Sofia.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant owns a house measuring 80 sq. m, situated in a village near to the city of Pernik.

On 8 May 1990 the State expropriated the house and the land it stood on, together with about fifty other houses in the area, as a result of the creation of an opencast coalmine near the village. The applicant received a sum of money and was promised another plot of land in the village as additional compensation. However, as the plot was not provided to him within the statutory time-limit of one year, on an unspecified date in 1992, as entitled to under domestic law in force at the time, the applicant requested that the expropriation be cancelled. His request was allowed by a decision of the Pernik regional governor of 2 October 1992. After that, the applicant paid back the monetary compensation he had received earlier and remained in his house.

However, due to its gradual enlargement, in the following years the mine approached the applicant ’ s house. Coal was extracted there through detonation, and the explosions shook his house on a daily basis. In 1997 and 1998, when detonations were carried out in the zone closest to it, cracks appeared on the walls of the house and two smaller buildings in the courtyard – a barn and a pen – collapsed. After that, the applicant moved out of his house, judging it too dangerous to stay.

In the years that followed he contacted the mine, seeking to obtain compensation, but the negotiations failed.

At the time, the mine was managed by a company which was wholly State-owned. In 2008 an unspecified share of it was privatised.

In 2001 the applicant brought a tort action against that company, seeking compensation for the damage inflicted on his property.

In the course of the ensuing proceedings, the courts commissioned an expert report, which established that the applicant ’ s house had been constructed between 1948 and 1950, when there had been no requirements as to seismic resistance. At the time of drawing up the report the house was uninhabitable, as its walls were bent and cracked, with the cracks reaching sometimes 20-35 cm in width. The report established further that the distance between the house and the min e ’ s periphery was about 160 ‑ 180 metres, meaning that the house was situated well inside the so ‑ called “sanitation zone” consisting of land within 500 metres of the mine ’ s edge. By law, there had to be no dwellings inside this zone.

In a judgment of 27 June 2003 the Pernik Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s action. That judgment was upheld upon appeal by the Sofia Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation, in judgments of 2 April 2007 and 3 July 2008. While acknowledging that the applicant had sustained damage as his house had become uninhabitable, and that the mine ’ s functioning in such proximity to dwellings had been unlawful, the domestic courts found nevertheless that no causal link had been established between these two elements. In particular, in their view, it had not been shown that the damage to the applicant ’ s house was due to the nearby explosions, and not to its “normal use” throughout the years, its manner of construction, and the applicant allegedly failing to maintain it after the 1990 expropriation.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, relying in addition on Article 14, of the damage inflicted on his property, claiming that it was due to the functioning of the coalmine in close proximity.

2. He also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the national courts ’ conclusions in the tort proceedings, considering that they were reached in disregard of the relevant evidence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in view of the fact that there has been substantial damage to the applicant ’ s property, which is situated close to a coalmine, in circumstances where the coalmine has carried out what the national courts found to be illegal detonations, and seeing that the applicant has been unable to obtain compensation?

In view of the proximity of the coal mine and the detonations carried out in it, is the applicant ’ s property fit for human habitation?

2. Do the facts of the case reveal a breach of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home, as protected under Article 8 of the Convention?

3. In the tort proceedings brought by him at the domestic level, did the applicant receive a “fair hearing”, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?