CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 2019
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-196768
- Date
- 16 septembre 2019
- Publication
- 16 septembre 2019
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 16 September 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 10843/14 GBM METAL EOOD and NOREX TK OOD against Bulgaria lodged on 30 January 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant companies own land in the outskirts of Sofia. At the time they purchased it – between 1997 and 2002 – it was earmarked for the construction of low-rise buildings. With the adoption of a General Spatial Plan of Sofia in 2007 the land was designated as a public park. The applicant companies applied for a modification of that plan, but were unsuccessful. In 2013 they also applied for the judicial review of the plan, in so far as it affected them, but their application was dismissed since domestic law does not allow the judicial review of such plans. The application to the Court concerns complaints about the interference with the applicant companies’ right to property and the lack of access to court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant companies’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, is that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? Does the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant companies?   2.     Is the restriction of the applicant companies’ right to access to a court to challenge the General Spatial Plan of Sofia in so far as it concerns them in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 16 septembre 2019
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-196768
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel