CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 4 August 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 8842/22 Maria Velikova DIMITROVA against Bulgaria lodged on 25 January 2022 communicated on 18 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the public sale of a studio owned by the applicant and the authorities’ refusal to classify it as non-sequestrable property. The applicant had an outstanding judgment debt of about 21,260   euros   (EUR). In connection with the ensuing enforcement proceedings, a bailiff scheduled a public sale of the applicant’s studio of 22.40 square metres. The applicant challenged that decision, arguing that the studio was her only home and that she lived there with her two minor children. The only dwelling of a debtor is shielded from enforcement under Article   444 § 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant presented an expert report showing that the studio had been furnished and used as a living space. However, in a final decision of 18 November 2021 the Varna Regional Court rejected her challenge. It held that the studio was too small to accommodate the applicant and her two children and therefore could not be considered a “dwelling”. It was irrelevant whether the family actually lived there. The domestic court also reasoned that studios were meant for creative work rather than residential use. As a result, the property did not qualify for protection under Article 444 § 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The studio was ultimately sold by the bailiff to a third party in February 2022. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the loss of her home, contending that the Varna Regional Court acted arbitrarily and with excessive formalism when accepting that it was sequestrable. She also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she did not have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the domestic authorities’ refusal to treat her studio as non-sequestrable and the property’s public sale? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? 2.     Does the public sale of the applicant’s studio also amount to unfair deprivation of property, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? 3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her other Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?