CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 février 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 61 February 2004 Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 44038/98, 42908/98, 44816/98 et al. Decision 5.2.2004 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Failure of authorities to build and deliver apartments which were due as compensation for expropriation orders: admissible Facts : All the applicants were owners of houses with a yard in city centres. Their houses were expropriated in the public interest under relevant domestic legislation. In compensation, they were to be given apartments which their respective municipalities intended to construct. The applicants’ houses were pulled down and in the meantime they were settled as tenants in municipally-owned apartments in the outskirts of their respective cities. The constructions of the buildings in which apartments had been offered to them were never started because of financial difficulties of the municipalities (or were never finished for the same reasons). The applicants filed different complaints to the municipal authorities and/or courts against non-fulfilment by the municipalities of their obligations towards them. The action by the second applicant reached the Supreme Court of Cassation, which held that the applicant had suffered damages because of the municipality’s failure to build and deliver an apartment to him. The municipality has, however, appealed and the proceedings are pending (as are most of the proceedings instituted by the other applicants). The applicants complain that they have not received the compensation to which they were entitled under domestic law, which represented a continuing breach of their property rights. Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 13. The Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies was joined to the merits.   © 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