CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 mars 2007

.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. 95 March 2007 Debelianovi v. Bulgaria - 61951/00 Judgment 29.3.2007 [Section V] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Inability to enforce order for the restitution of a listed building because of a moratorium that had been in place for more than twelve years: violation   Facts : In March 1994 the applicants obtained a court order for the return of a house that had belonged to their father and had been turned into a museum in 1956 after expropriation. The building is regarded as the most important historic and ethnographical monument in the town. The District Council appealed against the decision to return the building, but without success. In June 1994 the Bulgarian National Assembly introduced a moratorium on restitution laws with regard to properties classified as national cultural monuments. Appeals by the applicants, seeking to secure effective possession of the property, were unsuccessful. The moratorium was to last until the enactment of a new law on cultural monuments, but remained applicable in 2005, when their action was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court of Cassation on the basis of the moratorium. Law : The National Assembly’s decision to introduce a moratorium constituted control of the use of property. The purpose of the moratorium was to preserve properties classified as historic monuments which had been returned to their former owners pending the adoption of an appropriate statutory framework that would provide the best solution for the safeguarding of the interests of the community. The aim of the interference was thus to ensure the preservation of protected national heritage sites. This was a legitimate aim in the context of protecting a country’s cultural heritage (see the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society). However, the situation imposed on the applicants had lasted for about 12 and a half years and, except for a small sum awarded in respect of the two months preceding the moratorium, the applicants had obtained no compensation for their inability to enjoy their property. They had also suffered from the uncertainty as to when the impugned measure would end. The decision by the National Assembly had stipulated that the moratorium would remain applicable until the enactment of a new law on cultural monuments, but did not fix any time-limit for that purpose. During the 12 years in question, virtually no progress had been made with regard to the enactment of such a law. In short, the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possession had been impaired for over 12 years. The fact that they had been unable to obtain any compensation for their loss, coupled with their uncertainty as to what would become of their property, had further aggravated the detrimental effects of the interference. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – Question of just satisfaction not yet ready for decision as regards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.   © 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