CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sEAE3FFDB { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s515E7F5B { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .sA32F7E3F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sC3E0C863 { width:106.12%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sD52EC1FA { width:6.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE9952B46 { width:53.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC9DC8A30 { width:6.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF5E70E0A { width:53.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3B53EBCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:2pt } Published on 15 April 2024 THIRD SECTION Application no. 40087/21 Ilia Georgiev GEORGIEV and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 17 May 2021 communicated on 25 March 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE   1.     The nine applicants, all of Roma ethnic origin, hail from the village of Voyvodinovo. They fled from that village on 6 or 7 January 2019 as a result of protests against its Roma inhabitants by the rest of its population. The general circumstances of their case have been set out in Paketova and Others v.   Bulgaria (nos. 17808/19 and 36972/19, §§ 5-87, 4 October 2022). 2.     The present application concerns an order, issued by the mayor on 16   January 2019, to demolish a building said to be inhabited by them. 3.     The first applicant sought judicial review of that order. In December 2019 the Plovdiv Administrative Court dismissed his claim ( реш. № 2675 от 16.12.2019 г. по адм. д. № 294/2019 г., АдмС-Пловдив ). 4.     The first applicant appealed against that judgment, but on 17   November 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld it ( реш.   №   14213 от 17.11.2020 г. по адм. д. № 2726/2020 г., ВАС, II о. ). 5.     The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the demolition order was unlawful and unjustified. They also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that owing to the way in which the Bulgarian courts approached various aspects of their claim, the proceedings for judicial review of the order were not an effective remedy in respect of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention, and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts failed to engage with various arguments and items of evidence. Lastly, they complain under Article 14 of the Convention that the demolition order was in reality motivated by their Roma ethnic origin and that the courts failed to deal properly with that aspect of the case.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable? In particular, was the building to which the demolition order at issue in the present case related the applicants’ home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (in   the light of, in particular, the rulings on the point by the Plovdiv Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, the arguments and evidence that the first applicant submitted before them in relation to that)? 2.     If so, was the order to demolish that building in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (see Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 25446/06, §§ 107-44, 24 April 2012; Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria , no. 46577/15, §§ 53-55, 21 April 2016; and Simonova v. Bulgaria , no. 30782/16, § 48, 11 April 2023)? In particular, was the buildings the applicants’ only home?     APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. Mr Ilia Georgiev GEORGIEV 1987 Bulgarian 2. Ms Mirela Ilieva GEORGIEVA 2016 Bulgarian 3. Mr Georgi Gankov YORDANOV 2008 Bulgarian 4. Mr Ognyan Gankov YORDANOV 2011 Bulgarian 5. Ms Anka Gankova YORDANOVA 2010 Bulgarian 6. Ms Ganka Ognyanova YORDANOVA 1992 Bulgarian 7. Ms Gyurga Gankova YORDANOVA 2007 Bulgarian 8. Ms Maria Gankova YORDANOVA 2012 Bulgarian 9. Ms Nora Gankova YORDANOVA 2019 Bulgarian