CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   536 02.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ZAHARIEVI v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Zaharievi v. Bulgaria (application no. 22627/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the execution of a judicial decision awarding the applicants compensation for the nationalisation of a family business in 1947.   The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are two Bulgarian nationals, Mr Kiril Grigorov Zahariev and Mr Ventzeslav Grigorov Zahariev. They were born in 1926 and 1928 respectively and live in Sofia.   In 1998, under the 1997 Law on Compensation for Owners of Nationalised Real Property – which provided, subject to certain conditions, for the possibility of compensation for the expropriation of property where restitution was impossible – the applicants requested that half the compensation due for a wheat mill that had belonged to their father be awarded in the form of compensation bonds and the other half in shares in the M. company.   Their claim was granted in a decision of 29 July 1999 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Following an expert valuation, the compensation was assessed at 162,659.39   Bulgarian levs   (BGN), half of which was payable in compensation bonds and the other half in 2,437   shares in the   M. company (the number of shares being determined according to their book value), equivalent to BGN 81,330.   The applicants applied for judicial review. The Supreme Administrative Court allowed their request for the face value of the shares to be taken into account rather than their book value. The applicants were awarded all the 20,108   shares held by the State in the M. company.   Further to an appeal on points of law by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, in a judgment of 5   February   2002 a five-judge bench of the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the judgment and referred the case back for a fresh examination. An expert assessment concluded that the amount of compensation had been set at BGN 81,530, including procedural costs. To attain that amount, the applicants should therefore have received either 2,788   shares, taking into account the book value, or all the 78,356   shares plus supplementary compensation bonds, taking into account the face value.   In a judgment of 2 August 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court increased the number of shares awarded from 2,437 to 2,788, taking into account the shares’ book value. The applicants appealed on points of law, contesting the decision to take into account the book value of the shares and not their face value. However, in a judgment of 24 January 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed its judgment of 2 August 2002.   In the meantime, on 21 January 2003 the M. company had been taken over by the C. company.   After submitting a request to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to execute the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 24 January 2003, the applicants were informed that 2,788   shares in the   C. company had been transferred into their names.   The applicants submitted to the Ministry that the book value of shares in the C. company did not correspond to the value of shares in M. and that, as a result, the 2,788   shares they had been offered represented only one-fourteenth of the compensation initially awarded by the Supreme Administrative Court. However, the Ministry informed the applicants that it was no longer possible to alter the compensation, which had been determined with final effect by a court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 July 2003. It was decided that the admissibility and merits of the case would be examined at the same time.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Rait Maruste (Estonia), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Renate Jaeger (Germany), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), judges , Pavlina Panova (Bulgaria) , ad hoc judge , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained that the execution of the judgment of 24 January 2003 through the granting of shares in the C. company had had the effect of reducing the compensation actually awarded.   Decision of the Court   The judgment of 24 January 2003, by which the authorities had been required to pay compensation to the applicants, had created a possession for them. The fact that this final judgment had not been executed in accordance with its operative provisions had amounted to interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The Court accepted that it had not been objectively possible to execute the judgment in accordance with its operative provisions, notably because the M. company no longer existed.   However, the Court noted the “mechanical” nature of the approach adopted by the authorities, which had not given any consideration to whether there had been any difference in the value of the same number of shares in the two companies so as to ensure that the applicants would be granted a number of shares equivalent in value to BGN 81,530.   In addition, the authorities’ argument that it had not been possible to review the situation on the ground that the judgment had become final had not justified the interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, seeing that the applicants had highlighted a significant difference in the value of shares in the two companies.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.