CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 mai 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 152 May 2012 Hadzhiyska v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 20701/09 Decision 15.5.2012 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Positive obligations Damage to property caused by flooding after heavy rainfall: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant’s house was flooded after a river broke its banks due to heavy rain. She brought an action in damages against the Ministry of Environment and Waters and the regional governor alleging a failure to clean the riverbed, build protective facilities and put in place monitoring or a warning system. The administrative courts dismissed her claim as inadmissible. Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The applicant’s property had been damaged as a result of heavy rainfall, not by man-made activities. The applicant had neither alleged that the authorities could have foreseen or prevented the consequences of the rain, nor provided any details of the scale of the flooding. It remained unclear whether the measures she had suggested could have prevented or mitigated the damage the flood had caused to her possessions, or, in other words, whether the damage sustained by her could be attributed, wholly or partly, to State negligence. It did not appear that the floods had caused serious damage to the applicant’s house or been life-threatening and no causal link had been established between any acts or omissions of the authorities and the damage to her property. Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 did not go as far as requiring the Contracting States to take preventive measures to protect private possessions in all situations and all areas prone to flooding or other natural disasters. In view of the operational choices which had to be made in terms of priorities and resources, any obligations arising under that provision had to be interpreted in a way which did not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. The applicant had thus failed to make out an arguable claim under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).     © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes