CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5B8CBD11 { width:86.42%; border-collapse:collapse } .s18E818F5 { width:8.7%; 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 } .sE4F1D6A4 { width:29.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s73818145 { width:19.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDE0DCC1C { width:21.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7B921190 { width:21.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s94971193 { width:8.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8D1B71F7 { width:29.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45FE4A2 { width:19.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4248193D { width:21.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s83BDA4F6 { width:21.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 8 November 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39997/19 Rusi Dimitrov RUSEV and Rosi Zheleva RUSEVA against Bulgaria lodged on 20 July 2019 communicated on 14 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the delayed provision of compensation to the applicants for their property which was expropriated by the municipal authorities of Dobrich for urban development in 1983. By an order of 3   November 2009 the mayor determined the exact location, surface and other details in respect of the future two-room flat offered in compensation. However, the construction of the building where that flat was located was never finalised, after in 2014 the municipal authorities cancelled a public procurement procedure for the completion of the construction works. The applicants have filed petitions to the municipal authorities but no compensation had been provided to them by the time of lodging of the application to the Court. They complain under Article 1 Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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; Antonovi v. Bulgaria , no.   20827/02, 1 October 2009)? Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their 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 applicants bring about the conclusion of the procedure on an earlier date, by requesting to receive another property in compensation, in accordance with section 103(5) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act, or financial compensation, as provided for after 2001 pursuant to section   9(1) of the transitional provisions of the Territorial Planning Act (see Velyov and Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (dec.) [Committee], no.64570/10, §§   27-31, 20   September 2016, and Petrovi v. Bulgaria [Committee], no. 26759/12, §§   25-29, 2 February 2017)? In that connection, at what point in time did the applicants become aware that the construction of the flat due to them would not be completed?         No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Rusi Dimitrov RUSEV 1952 Bulgarian Dobrich 2. Rosi Zheleva RUSEVA 1955 Bulgarian Dobrich