CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s6F64785A { width:87.54%; border-collapse:collapse } .s92C821B8 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s66732282 { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF43C5150 { width:22.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3E181D07 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s53532DF { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s77626D63 { width:22.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 7 February 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37273/20 Tatyana Kostadinova GEORGIEVA and Stoyan Nikolaev GEORGIEV against Bulgaria lodged on 18 August 2020 communicated on 17 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application is of the type of Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos.   66581/12 and 25054/15,14 May 2020 and concerns a complaint regarding inadequate compensation following expropriation. On 5 September 2019 the Sofia Municipality expropriated 962 sq. m. of land owned by the applicants (spouses) for the reconstruction of a major boulevard. The compensation was set at BGN 148.90 (about EUR 76) or BGN 0.15 (about EUR 0.07) per sq. m. This was the land’s valuation for taxation purposes, as indicated by the local authorities. The applicants argue that the compensation awarded was not reasonably related to the market value, noting that a similar plot of land in proximity to theirs was compensated with BGN 23.32 (about EUR   11.92) per sq. m for the same infrastructural project. In a final judgment of 21 February 2020, the Sofia City Administrative Court upheld the amount of compensation. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, relying in addition on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.       QUESTION 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 Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Tatyana Kostadinova GEORGIEVA 1953 Bulgarian Sofia 2. Stoyan Nikolaev GEORGIEV 1952 Bulgarian Sofia