CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 septembre 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s48EAAAFF { width:99.2%; border-collapse:collapse } .s231BA05E { width:7.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sBE6234FC { width:25.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s570F2A4A { width:21.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sACC72EF4 { width:22.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA5EAF5CE { width:23.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s96AC08EC { width:7.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s95F498A1 { width:25.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9172885D { width:21.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCD15863 { width:22.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF9BC9680 { width:23.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 23 September 2020 Published on 12 October 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56383/15 Stanimir Ivanov BOZHILOV and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 5 November 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants – nine individuals and a limited liability company – is set out in the appendix. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms M. Milanova, a lawyer practicing in Sofia. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were the owners of two plots of land on the outskirts of Sofia, on the strength of a restitution decision issued on 14   July 1994 and subsequent transactions. One of the plots, measuring 16,003 square metres, was described in the restitution decision as a “field”, and the other one, measuring 2,999 square metres, was described as a “meadow”. In a decision of 21 December 2013 the Council of Ministers expropriated 3,460 square metres of the first of the applicants’ plots and 1,153 square metres of the second plot, or 4,613 square metres in total, as well as other land in the area, for the construction of a section of the ring road around Sofia. The decision stated that the applicants would receive monetary compensation in the amount of 4,737 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent to 2,423 euros (EUR), or on average about BGN   1 (EUR 0.52) per square metre. The compensation was calculated on the basis of the Regulation on the calculation of the value of agricultural land (hereinafter “the Regulation”). The applicants applied for a judicial review of the expropriation decision, arguing that the compensation awarded to them was too low. The Supreme Administrative Court appointed experts to examine the characteristics of the expropriated land and calculate its value. In a report dated 19 March 2015 an expert presented three transactions with what was defined as “agricultural land within the urbanized territory”, considered by the expert comparable within the meaning of the State Property Act 1996 (hereinafter “the 1996 Act”). These plots had been sold for an average of BGN 215 (EUR 110) per square metre. Another report prepared by three experts was presented on 1 April 2015. On the basis of entries into the relevant cadaster plans, the experts considered it “uncontestable” that the applicant’s land was urbanized. Accordingly, they calculated its value on the basis of transactions with similar plots. They presented three transactions with plots they considered comparable, which had been sold for an average of BGN 138 (EUR 70) per square metre. Yet another report concerned the values of the plots for taxation purposes. That value as regards the first plot (measuring 16,003 square metres in total) was indicated as BGN 337,263 (EUR 172,500), or about BGN 21 (EUR 10.7) per square metre, and as regards the second plot (measuring 2,999 square metres in total) the value was BGN 56,883 (EUR   29,096), or BGN 19 (EUR 9.7) per square metre. The Supreme Administrative Court gave a judgment on 5 May 2015. It was of the view that the expert report of 19 March 2015 concerned plots which did not qualify as comparable, and did not mention the report of 1   April 2015. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ argument that the expropriated land was urbanized, considering that it was agricultural. That conclusion was based on data contained in a cadastral plan adopted in 1989. The applicants had submitted plans of the two plots issued by the local municipality, describing the land as “urbanized”, but it had not been shown when and on what basis the land’s status as indicated in the 1989 cadastral plan had been amended. The expropriated land was therefore agricultural land within the urban territory, and since the Supreme Administrative Court had not been presented with data on transactions with comparable plots in the same zone, the value of the applicants’ land fell to be established under the Regulation – the method used by the Council of Ministers when ordering the expropriation. The application for judicial review thus had no merit. The applicants submitted several judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court, concerning plots of land they described as neighbouring to theirs, expropriated on the strength of the Council of Ministers’ decision of 21 December 2013. In the majority of those judgments the Supreme Administrative Court found that the expropriated land was urbanized, and in three of them, noting that there had not been transactions with comparable land meeting the criteria of the 1996 Act, awarded the claimants compensation calculated in accordance with section   32(3)(1) of that Act, namely two times the value of the land for taxation purposes. The compensation thus awarded varied between BGN   38 (EUR 19.4) and BGN 53.4 (EUR 27) per square metre (see Решение №   4119 от 14.04.2015 г. по адм. дело № 1238/2014 г., ВАС, III o. ; Решение № 4922 от 30.04.2015 г. по адм. дело № 1916/2014 г. ВАС, III   o. ; Решение № 7717 от 19.06.2017 г. по адм. дело № 4567/2016 г., ВАС, III o. ). In another case the Supreme Administrative Court, finding that several transactions with comparable plots had been concluded permitting the establishment of a market value, awarded the claimants the equivalent of BGN 14.6 (EUR 7.5) per square meter (see Решение № 2783 от 14.03.2016 г. по адм. дело №   8180/2015   г., ВАС, III o. ). Finally, in yet another judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the expropriated land was agricultural and upheld the compensation calculated in accordance with the Regulation (see Решение № 4941 от 4.05.2015 г. по адм. дело № 7927/2014 г., ВАС, III o. ). Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice have been described in Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 66581/12 and 25054/15, § 23-38, 14 May 2020). Under section 32(3)(1) of the 1996 Act, the compensation for properties situated in urban territories, where their market value cannot be established, equals two times their value for taxation purposes, calculated in accordance with the rules contained in the Local Taxes and Tolls Act ( Закон за местните данъци и такси ). COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, relying additionally on Articles 6 § 1 and 17 of the Convention, that the compensation awarded to them when their land was expropriated was too low. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the deprivation of the applicants’ of their property comply with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, was the compensation awarded to them reasonably related to their expropriated land’s value (see Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 66581/12 and   25054/15, 14 May 2020)?       APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Birth year/year of registration Nationality Place of residence/registered seat 1 Stanimir Ivanov BOZHILOV 1960 Bulgarian Sofia 2 Anton Ivanov BOZHILOV 1958 Bulgarian Sofia 3 Ivan Ivanov KIROV 1953 Bulgarian Sofia 4 Bozhidar Georgiev MILUSHEV 1978 Bulgarian Sofia 5 Mihail Georgiev MILUSHEV 1974 Bulgarian Sofia 6 Tsvetan Ivanov TSVETANOV 1952 Bulgarian Sofia 7 Lidia Kirilova STANIMIROVA 1950 Bulgarian Sofia 8 Lyudmila Kirilova STOYANOVA 1953 Bulgarian Sofia 9 Snezhanka Bozhilova TOMOVA 1956 Bulgarian Sofia 10 SIMEI IMOTI EOOD 2009 Bulgarian Sofia