CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 March 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49443/17 Kancho Petkov BONEV against Bulgaria lodged on 29 June 2017 communicated on 1 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the failure of the national courts in civil proceedings initiated by the applicant to respond to an important argument of his. In August 2008 the applicant entered into a preliminary contract whereby the other party undertook to transfer to him property in lieu of the payment of a debt. However, soon after the signing of the contract the debtor sold the property to her son. The applicant brought proceedings seeking to have the preliminary contract declared final. These proceedings were stayed to await the outcome of another action brought by the applicant, aiming to have the sale of the property by the mother to her son declared null and void. In a final judgment of the Varna District Court of 27 July 2015 this latter action was allowed, and the sale was found to be null and void vis-à-vis the applicant. However, in the proceedings concerning the preliminary contract, the applicant’s action was eventually rejected (final decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 10 February 2017), with the national courts finding that the property had been transferred to the debtor’s son and could not be acquired by the applicant. They thus failed to comment on the Varna District Court’s judgment of 27 July 2015, despite the applicant expressly raising an argument on that point. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the courts’ failure to respond to his argument concerning the judgment of 27 July 2015, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the loss of his legitimate expectation to acquire property on that account. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, seeing in particular the national courts’ failure to respond to his argument concerning the effects of the judgment of 27 July 2015?   2.     Did the above failure also entail a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, did the applicant have a legitimate expectation to acquire property?