CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 2019

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 4 December 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 64387/14 Valeri Stoyanov STOYANOV and Valentin Stoyanov TABAKOV against Bulgaria lodged on 8 September 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of final domestic judgments in the applicants’ favour by virtue of which a mayor was obliged to initiate privatisation proceedings for the sale of a property to the applicants at preferential conditions. In a judgment of 26 November 2013 in application no. 34130/04 Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria , the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the failure of the mayor to implement the domestic judgments. Thereafter, the municipality opened up a new privatisation procedure concerning a building which included the property (an office) at issue. However, those proceedings were subject to new eligibility conditions, which disqualified the applicants from the start. The applicants’ related judicial challenges were partially upheld. Despite that, in 2014 the property was effectively sold to a third party at the end of the new proceedings. The applicants were evicted thereafter.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the failure of the authorities to implement the final judgments in the applicants’ favour – directing the municipality to open a privatisation procedure offering to sell a property located at 1, Khan Krum Street, Pazardzhik, at preferential conditions to the applicants – and the sale by the authorities of the property in issue to a third party instead, amount to an unlawful or unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, in breach of their right under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, as well as to a breach, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of their right to access to a court ( Basarba OOD v.   Bulgaria , no. 77660/01, § 48, 7 January 2010)? 2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal effective remedies under Article   13, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, for the implementation of the final judgments in their favour?