CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2024

.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 } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; 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 } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sAB9254F8 { width:28.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBFCD8A20 { width:17.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAA934284 { width:21.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC544096D { width:24.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF91E5707 { width:28.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7948C2AE { width:17.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCCD9B22E { width:21.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5586CA19 { width:24.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 15 April 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 9313/21 Nevena Mihaylova STEFANOVA and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 27 January 2021 communicated on 28 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint, of the type examined in Kostov and   Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 66581/12 and 25054/15, 14 May 2020), that the compensation awarded to the applicants for their land expropriated for public needs was very low. The applicants’ plot of land of 390 square metres in Sofia was expropriated by the mayor of the city in a decision dated 7 October 2019. The compensation allotted to the applicants was 18,731 Bulgarian levs (BGN), or 9,576 euros (EUR), equivalent to BGN 48 (EUR 24.5) per square metre, and was based on the land’s valuation for the purposes of taxation. Under the Municipal Property Act appliable to the case, which contains provisions very similar to the ones in the State Property Act summarised in Kostov and Others (cited above, §§ 24-29), the amount of compensation is to be equal to the tax valuation where no transactions are found with land meeting the statutory requirements to qualify as indicative of a market value. The applicants applied for the judicial review of the expropriation order, but it was upheld in a final judgment of the Sofia City Administrative Court of 27 April 2020. The domestic court confirmed that no plots of land subject to transactions in the relevant period preceding the expropriation qualified as comparable, considering that the one such plot selected by a court-appointed expert (see below) did not meet the relevant requirements. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, relying in addition on Articles 6 § 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention, of the level of compensation they received. They consider that the restrictive rules of the Municipal Property Act, introducing numerous requirements as to the transactions which can be used to calculate a market price, led in their case to an unfair result. They refer in addition to the following circumstances to justify their claim that the actual market value of their plot was much higher than the compensation awarded: 1) the plot of land considered by the court-appointed expert to be sufficiently similar to theirs had been sold for BGN   486 (EUR 248) per square metre; 2) the Sofia City Administrative Court awarded the owners of a neighbouring plot expropriated in the same procedure BGN 696 (EUR 356) per square metre, this time basing itself on a number of transactions with comparable land; 3) according to an expert valuation commissioned by the applicants for the purposes of the procedure before the Court, the actual market value of their land was equivalent to EUR   607 per square metre. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the compensation awarded to the applicants reasonably related to their expropriated land’s value (see Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos.   66581/12 and 25054/15, 14 May 2020)? Are the data submitted by the applicants sufficient to show that the market value of their land could have been significantly higher?       APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Nevena Mihaylova STEFANOVA 1952 Bulgarian Sofia 2. Elena Kalinova MICHEVA 1976 Bulgarian Sofia 3. Mila Kalinova STEFANOVA 1981 Bulgarian Sofia