CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sC295E44D { border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .sD271F6F6 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3E08F9CA { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC54D2024 { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF42CB81 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85D71A24 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DE46EBF { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B88E32 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 24 June 2024   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 38993/21 and 16430/22 Tatyana Georgieva GIGOVA and Mario Lyubenov GIGOV against Bulgaria and Todorka Berova DIMITROVA and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 28 July 2021 and 23 March 2022 respectively communicated on 5 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern urban planning affecting the applicants’ property rights. The applicants are the owners of different plots of land on the territory of Sofia, which in 2006 and 2009 were allocated for parks and gardens under the General Urban Development Plan of the city. After the allocation the applicants have been unable to construct upon or otherwise develop their land. Under the appliable legislation, land earmarked for parks and green areas is to be expropriated by the municipal authorities. However, no expropriation procedures had been initiated by the time of the lodging of the applications in 2021-22, nor had the municipal authorities even adopted detailed urban plans of the respective neighbourhoods, which is a preliminary step in that regard. The applicants attempted unsuccessfully to obtain alternative solutions, such as exchanging their plots against other municipally-owned plots, or receiving a permission to develop the land within the allocated purpose. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy impossibility to use their land, reserved for the creation of green zones in Sofia, coupled with the failure of the authorities to expropriate the land or to agree to an alternative solution. The applicants contend that the situation at issue is bound to continue many more years. They complain in addition under Article   13 of the Convention about the unavailability of effective domestic remedies to defend their property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the lengthy impossibility for the applicants to use their plots of land, reserved under the General Urban Development Plan of Sofia for the creation of parks and gardens, and the failure of the municipal authorities during this period of time to initiate expropriation procedures or to agree to an alternative solution, amount to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, does the interference with the applicants’ rights impose on them an excessive individual burden (see, for example, Sporrong and Lönnroth v.   Sweden , 23 September 1982, §§ 66-74, Series A no. 52, Potomska and   Potomski v.   Poland , no. 33949/05, §§ 65-80, 29 March 2011, and Petar   Matas v. Croatia , no.   40581/12, §§ 36-48, 4 October 2016? 2.     Do the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX   List of applications   No. App. no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 38993/21 Gigovi v. Bulgaria 28/07/2021 Tatyana Georgieva GIGOVA 1967 Sofia Bulgarian Mario Lyubenov GIGOV 1965 Sofia Bulgarian Mihail EKIMDZHIEV Katina BONCHEVA Milena DOKOVA-KOSTADINOVA 2. 16430/22 Dimitrova and Others v. Bulgaria 23/03/2022 Todorka Berova DIMITROVA 1954 Targovishte Bulgarian Ivan Dimitrov MINCHEV 1947 Sofia Bulgarian Ventsislav Ivanov SPASOV 1981 Sofia Bulgarian Anna Todorova TSANOVA 1943 Sofia Bulgarian   Rumen Georgiev VUCHEV 1963 Sofia Bulgarian Valentin Georgiev VUCHEV 1960 Sofia Bulgarian Vasil Stoyanov VUCHEV 1950 Sofia Bulgarian Yordan Stoyanov VUCHEV 1947 Sofia Bulgarian Tsvetanka Andreeva VUCHEVA 1935 Sofia Bulgarian Yordanka Berova VUCHEVA 1950 Sofia Bulgarian Aleksandar KASHAMOV