CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2023

.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 } Published on 25 September 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 54545/21 Shafik Mahmud ALSBEY against Bulgaria lodged on 4 November 2021 communicated on 6 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lawfulness of the expropriation of applicant’s land, which he considers contrary to the domestic legislation. On 2 March 2020 the authorities expropriated a part of a plot of land in Sofia co-owned by the applicant and his wife (herself not an applicant). The plot measured 957 sq.m. and the expropriated part was 898 sq.m. The applicant sought judicial review of the expropriation order, claiming that the expropriation was contrary to section 21(3) of the Municipal Property Act, as the remaining part of the plot did not meet the requirements of a separate plot; he also complained of the low amount of compensation. The applicant argued that the expropriation order should be quashed and the case remitted to the administrative body to order the expropriation and set compensation for the whole plot. By a final judgment of 28 April 2021, the Sofia City Administrative Court (“the SCAC”) increased the amount of compensation for the expropriated part of the land, awarding 404,303 Bulgarian levs, equivalent to 206,717 euros. The SCAC did not address in that judgment the alleged unlawfulness of the expropriation on the ground that the remainder of 59 sq.m. could not exist as a separate plot. Upon request by the applicant, in a supplementary judgment of 18 June 2021, that court refused to declare the expropriation unlawful or to award compensation for the part which had not been expropriated (59 sq.m.), as it considered that doing so would go beyond the scope of the expropriation order. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the expropriation was unlawful as it was contrary to section 21(3) of the Municipal Property Act, and that he had to bear an excessive burden after he was left with 59 sq.m. of land which could not exist as a separate plot, nor was he awarded any compensation for it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, was the expropriation in compliance with domestic law, namely section 21(3) of the Municipal Property Act (see Minasyan and Semerjyan v.   Armenia , no. 27651/05, §§ 60-77, 23 June 2009 and Akhverdiyev v.   Azerbaijan , no. 76254/11, §§ 79-100, 29 January 2015)? Did the recourse to the supplementation of the judgment procedure constitute an effective remedy in that regard?   2.     Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant, in view of the fact that the non-expropriated part of 59 sq.m. could not exist as a separate plot? Was there any other effective remedy available to him?