CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juin 2024

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 1 July 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 52180/21 Yordanka Vasileva STOYANOVA against Bulgaria lodged on 19 October 2021 communicated on 10 June 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint, of the type examined in Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 66581/12 and 25054/15, 14 May 2020), that the compensation awarded to the applicant for her land expropriated for public needs was too low. The applicant owned a one-sixth share of a plot of land measuring 164   square metres, situated in the central part of Plovdiv. The plot was expropriated for the construction of a street in several decisions of the mayor of the city. As concerns the applicant’s share, the relevant decision was taken on 24 January 2023. It was upheld in judicial-review proceedings initiated by the applicant, which were concluded with a final judgment of the Plovdiv Administrative Court of 8 June 2023. The applicant was awarded compensation amounting to 12,600 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent of 6,445 euros (EUR), also equivalent of BGN 461 (EUR 236) per square metre. The compensation was calculated on the basis of the prices of plots of land sold during a previous period, selected in keeping with the requirements of the Municipal Property Act, which are identical to those in the State Property Act described in Kostov and Others (cited above, §§ 25-26). The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She contends that the transactions used to calculate the compensation due to her did not concern equivalent land, and that the market price of her share of the plot was significantly higher. To substantiate her arguments, the applicant submits a tender notice released by the Plovdiv Municipality at about the same time when the value of her plot was calculated, concerning another centrally-located plot of land with an initial price equivalent of BGN   1,624 (EUR 830) per square metre.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the compensation awarded to the applicant reasonably related to the expropriated land’s value (see Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos.   66581/12 and 25054/15, 14 May 2020)? Has the applicant adequately shown that the market value of the land could have been significantly higher?