CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 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 } .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 } Published on 3 January 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40101/19 Snezhanka Docheva STOYANOVA against Bulgaria lodged on 20 July 2019 communicated on 9 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the delayed provision of compensation to the applicant for her parents’ property which was expropriated by the municipal authorities of Dobrich for urban development in 1985. Initially, the applicant’s parents were to be compensated with a flat in a building the authorities intended to construct. By a supplementary order of 3   November 2009 the mayor determined compensation with a three-room flat in another building. However, the construction of the building in question was never finalised, after in 2014 the municipal authorities cancelled a public procurement procedure for the completion of the construction works. Since 1985 the applicant has been housed in a municipal dwelling, for which she pays rent. The applicant has filed petitions to the municipal authorities, but no compensation had been provided to her by the time of lodging of the application to the Court. She complains under Article 1 of 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 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? To what extent were the delays in the procedure imputable to the authorities? In particular, could the applicant 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 applicant become aware that the construction of the flat due to her would not be completed?