CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 13 March 2020 Published on 11 May 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 51587/15 Yordan Kitanov ILIEV against Bulgaria lodged on 6 October 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was born in 1941. He passed away in 2019 and his son, Kiril Yordanov Iliev, expressed a wish to continue the proceedings in his stead. The application concerns the delayed provision of compensation to the applicant for property of his wife (who passed away in 2010 and was succeeded by the applicant and his son) expropriated in 1986 by the authorities in Sofia for urban development. In 1986 the authorities had undertaken to provide a flat and a garage, and even though the flat was constructed and provided within short time-limits, no garage was offered, nor were any garages being constructed in the area. In 2012 the applicant and his son received financial compensation in lieu of a garage. In 2011 the applicant brought proceedings seeking damages for the delays in the compensation procedure but was unsuccessful. He complains under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the compensation procedure in the case excessively lengthy, and has this resulted in a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 42908/98 and 3 others, 9 June 2005; Lazarov v.   Bulgaria , no. 21352/02, 22 May 2008; Rashkova and Simeonska v.   Bulgaria [Committee], no. 41090/12, 2 February 2017)? Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   To what extent were the delays in the procedure imputable to the authorities? In particular, could the applicant (his wife) bring about the conclusion of the procedure on an earlier date, by requesting to receive financial compensation instead of compensation through a garage, as entitled to after 2001 on the strength of section 9(1) of the transitional provisions of the Territorial Planning Act (see Petrovi v. Bulgaria [Committee], no. 26759/12, §§ 25-29, 2 February 2017)? In that connection, at what point of time did the applicant (his wife) become aware that a garage would never be constructed and offered by the authorities (ibid., §   25)?