CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 mai 2008

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 108 May 2008 Todorov v. Bulgaria - 65850/01 Decision 13.5.2008 [Section V] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions No right under domestic law to a court award reflecting inflation: inadmissible   In 1997 the applicant brought an action against a municipality seeking restitution of the price paid by him under a contract concluded in 1990 and damages for breach of that contract. A district court granted his claim in part. In 1999 the award was increased on appeal. However, by then, owing to the depreciation of the currency, with accrued interest it represented in real terms but a fraction of the original claim. Inadmissible : While it was true that the award had been made against the municipality as an administrative body, the facts concerned contractual relations between the applicant and the municipality. In accordance with the established practice of the Bulgarian courts, it was not possible to adjust claims. The applicant had no right under national law to obtain an award in damages reflecting inflation and, therefore, his claim for such an award did not constitute a “legitimate expectation” or “existing possessions”, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. That Article could not be interpreted as imposing an obligation on States to maintain the value of claims or apply an inflation-compatible default interest rate to private claims. The Court did not find any indication that the authorities had contributed to the loss of value of his claim. In particular, there had been no unreasonable delays in the proceedings: incompatible ratione materiae.   © 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