FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 76963/01
by GYULEVA and OTHERS
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
	Mr	 , President,
	Mrs	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mrs	 	Mr	  judges 
and Mrs C. , Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 November 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Mrs Elena Trifonova Gyuleva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1921 and lives in Plovdiv. Her children, Mrs Valentina Gyuleva (born in 1947) and Mr Ivan Gyulev (born in 1950) are the second and third applicants. They also live in Plovdiv. In 2004 Mrs Anna Kukova, who was born in 1973 and lives in Sofia, joined as the fourth applicant. The applicants are represented by Mr M. Ekimdjiev, a lawyer practising in Plovidiv.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In 1968 the first applicant and her husband purchased from the State a three-room apartment which covered the first floor of a two-storey building in Plovdiv. Its surface was approximately 90 square metres. They also acquired a share in the plot on which the building was constructed and a share in the yard.
The whole property had become State owned by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following several years.
In the years after 1968 the applicants made improvements in the property and constructed an annex and a garage in the yard. The second, third and fourth applicants became co-owners of the property.
On 29 September 1992, shortly after the adoption of the Restitution Law, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the applicants.
On 30 January 1995 the Plovdiv District Court found that the 1968 transaction had been valid and rejected the claim. On appeal, on 14 July 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. The courts examined and rejected the plaintiff’s allegation that the apartment had been acquired through abuse of official position.
On 20 May 1996 the Chief Public Prosecutor submitted to the Supreme Court a request for review.
On 22 July 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation, to which the case was transferred following a reform in the judicial system, accepted the request and, considering that the lower courts had not examined all arguments of the plaintiffs, quashed their judgments and referred the case for fresh examination.
In the renewed proceedings, on 21 July 1998 the Plovdiv District Court again rejected the claim against the applicants. The other party appealed.
On 12 July 1999 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment, declared the 1968 contract null and void and restored the plaintiffs’ ownership over the first floor and the respective share in the plot and the yard. By final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 21 June 2000 that decision was upheld.
The courts found that a relevant document had been signed by the Deputy Minister of Architecture and Building Planning instead of the Minister personally.
The applicants refused to leave the property. In 2002 Mr and Mrs P., the persons to whom the restored owners had sold the property in February 2002, brought a rei vindicatio action against the applicants. The statement of claim did not mention the garage.
In May 2002 Mr and Ms P. destroyed the garage and build a new one. The applicants complained before the prosecuting authorities who considered that the dispute was of civil nature and had to be decided in court.
On 24 October 2002 the Plovdiv District Court delivered its judgment. It ordered the applicants to vacate the property.
As regards the annex, the court noted the absence of authorisation for its construction but decided that the rei vindicatio claim was futile as the applicants no longer possessed the annex, Mr and Mrs P having occupied it. The court rejected the claim on that ground.
As regards the garage, the court made remarks in the sense that it must be considered State owned but did not rule on the issue as Mr and Ms P. had not claimed the garage.
The applicants’ ensuing appeals were unsuccessful. The proceedings ended by final decision on 9 February 2004.
In 2000, it became possible for the applicants to obtain partial compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants did not make use of this opportunity at the time.
B.  Relevant background facts, domestic law and practice
The remaining relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.
Shortly after the adoption of that judgment, on 8 May 2007 the Government published regulations implementing section 7(3) of the Restitution law (State Gazette no. 37 of May 2007). The regulations enable persons currently in possession of housing compensation bonds to obtain payment at face value from the Ministry of Finance.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Articles 6, 8 and 13, that they had been deprived of their property arbitrarily, through no fault of theirs and without adequate compensation.
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings that ended in 2000.
The applicants also raised complaints in relation to the 2002-2004 proceedings between them and Mr and Ms P. The applicants alleged that in breach of Articles 6 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the courts in those proceedings had prevented them from obtaining a decision on their property rights over the annex and the garage they had built and had hampered the exercise of their property rights.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complained, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Articles 8 and 13, that they had been deprived of their property arbitrarily and without adequate compensation.
The Court considers that the above complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants also complained under Article 6 about the length of the civil proceedings that ended in 2000.
Article 6 § 1 reads, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
3. The applicants complained that in breach of Articles 6 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the courts in the 2002-2004 proceedings had prevented them from obtaining a decision on their property rights over the annex and the garage they had built and had hampered the exercise of their property rights.
In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the above complaints are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 (length of the proceedings that ended in 2000) and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention concerning the application of the Restitution Law and related legislation in their case;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Claudia Peer 
	Registrar	President