CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 2026

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 May 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 24847/23 Dimitar Slavchev DIMITROV against Bulgaria lodged on 15 June 2023 communicated on 4 May 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the adequacy of the compensation awarded to the applicant for the expropriation of his property for public needs. The case is of the type examined in Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos.   66581/12 and 25054/15, 14 May 2020). In early 2023, the Council of Ministers (Government) expropriated agricultural land owned by the applicant – parts of 28 separate plots, about 41,000 square metres in total – for the construction of a road. The compensation was calculated on the basis of prices listed in several notarial deeds for land in the same area, and ranged between 0.19 and 0.40 Bulgarian levs (BGN), or about 0.10-0.20 euros (EUR), per square metre. The applicant sought judicial review, challenging the amount of compensation. The Montana Administrative Court appointed an expert to assess the land’s value in accordance with the State Property Act (see, for the statutory criteria under the Act, Kostov and Others , cited above, §§ 24-26). The expert concluded that the transactions relied upon at the administrative stage reflected unrealistically low prices and could not serve as a basis for determining a valid market value. Using documents about additional transactions submitted by the applicant, the expert calculated the market value of part of the land at BGN 1.878 (EUR 0.96) per square metre. For the remaining plots – where the relevant transactions did not concern land in the same village – the expert applied the Regulation on the calculation of the value of agricultural land (ibid., §§ 30-32) and proposed values between BGN   0.62 (EUR 0.31) and BGN 0.72 (EUR 0.37) per square metre. In a final judgment of 17 March 2023, the Montana Administrative Court increased the compensation initially awarded. For the plots valued under the Regulation, the court accepted the expert’s proposed amounts. For the other plots, however, the court did not adopt the expert’s valuation of BGN 1.878 (EUR 0.96) per square metre. Instead, it accepted a calculation on the basis of all available transactions, including those the expert had deemed unreliable, and awarded compensation between BGN   0.80 (EUR 0.41) and BGN 1.03 (EUR 0.53) per square metre. The court stated that this approach “met the purpose of the law”. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, also relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the compensation awarded was inadequate and too low. He argues that the fair market value of all the land should have been BGN 1.878 (EUR 0.96) per square metre. He further submits that, according to statistical data, the average market value of agricultural land in the Montana region at the relevant time was BGN 1.43 (EUR 0.73) per square metre. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the compensation awarded to the applicant reasonably related to the 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 applicant sufficient to show that the market value of his land could have been significantly higher?