CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 mai 2005

.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. 75 May 2005 Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 43278/98 Decision 12.5.2005 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Nullification of property titles of persons who had acquired nationalised property during the communist regime: admissible   In 1968, the applicants bought jointly an apartment which had been nationalised by the communist regime in the late 1940s (the apartment was later divided into two apartments). The heirs of the pre‑nationalisation owner of the apartment brought an action against the applicants with a view to recovering the apartments (they based their action on Article 7 of the Restitution Law, which provides that certain property acquired by third persons after nationalisation could be recovered by the former owners or their heirs if the third person in question had become owner in breach of the law, by virtue of their position in the Communist party or through abuse of power). In 1995, the District Court nullified the applicants’ contract of 1968 and restored the plaintiffs’ ownership rights. The court found that the contract had not been signed by the competent mayor. The judgment was upheld by the City court and the Supreme Court of Cassation, which added that there was circumstantial evidence that the first applicant might have abused his position when applying to purchase the apartment. In 2000, the applicants and their sons vacated the two apartments and the pre-nationalisation owners took possession of them. Some of the applicants are currently renting apartments at monthly rates of 100 Euros; several of them have unsuccessfully attempted to obtain municipal apartments at fixed rental rates. On an unspecified date the applicants received compensation by bonds which they alleged had a much lower real value than their nominal value. Moreover, due to an omission of the regional administration, their bonds had not been registered, and they were unable to sell them. Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   © 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