CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 20 March 2018   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 38948/10 and 8954/17 Simeon Borisov SAKSKOBURGGOTSKI and Maria-Luisa Borisova CHROBOK against Bulgaria lodged on 16 June 2010 and 13 January 2017 respectively     The facts and complaints in these applications have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the parliamentary decision of 18 December 2009 amount to an interference with the first and second applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their “possessions”, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference lawful for the purposes of that provision, in particular in view of the fact that the restrictions complained of, akin to interim injunctions, were imposed by Parliament, whereas such measures are usually to be decided on by the courts? Was the interference with the first and second applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the public interest and proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued, and was a fair balance achieved between any need to protect the interests of the State in preserving the properties held by the applicants and the nature of the restrictions on their rights, as decided upon by Parliament? Do such restrictions remain justified in light of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 after the passage of many years? Have the first and second applicants been unjustifiably placed in a situation of prolonged uncertainty as to their restitution rights? Did the first and second applicants have at their disposal any means to challenge before a tribunal or another authority the initial imposition on them of the restrictions at issue, or their continued application? If not, did this amount to a violation of the access-to-a-court requirement of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention or of Article 13 of the Convention?   2.     With regard to their complaints concerning the Saragyol complex and the Sitnyakovo estate, did the first and second applicants have “existing possessions” or “legitimate expectations” to acquire property, thus triggering the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, could they legitimately rely on any restitution effect of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 4 June 1998, and were they considered the owners of the properties at issue prior to the State reclaiming them in 2011? What was the nature of any interference on the part of the authorities with the first and second applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? Was such interference in compliance with that provision’s requirements? In the judicial proceedings concerning the Saragyol complex and the Sitnyakovo estate, did the first and second applicants have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the first and second applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?