CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } Communicated on 4 December 2020 Published on 21 December 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 75025/17 Vasilka Asenova UGRINOVA against Bulgaria lodged on 13 October 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application, of the type examined in Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 42908/98 and 3 others, 9 June 2005) and the follow-up cases, concerns the delayed provision of compensation to the applicant for a property of hers expropriated by the municipal authorities in Sofia in 1987 for urban development. The applicant was due to receive a flat she intended to live in, in a building the authorities intended to construct but never did. Even though attempts were made subsequently, between 2009 and 2014, to identify and transfer another flat to the applicant, they were unsuccessful. No compensation had yet been provided to the applicant by the time of the lodging of the application. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the compensation procedure 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; Basmenkova v. Bulgaria [Committee], no. 63391/13, 6 April 2017)? Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   Were the delays in the procedure entirely imputable to the authorities and could the applicant have brought about its conclusion on an earlier date? In particular, when did the applicant become aware that the building where her flat was to be situated would never be constructed, and could she have sought different compensation even before 2009? Could she, in addition, have contested the municipal authorities’ failure to rule on her request submitted on 17 May 2014 to receive another flat in compensation?