4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Sofia. 5.  The applicant’s late father owned a house, a garage and an outhouse with some adjoining land in Sofia. By a mayor’s order of 28 March 1989 the above property was expropriated for the construction of a school. The expropriated property was valued at 16,878.20 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). The order, based on section 98(1) of the 1973 Territorial and Urban Planning Act (“the TUPA” – “Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство”) provided that the applicant was to be compensated with a flat and his father was to be compensated with another flat and a garage. Both flats were to be situated in a building which the municipality intended to construct. 6.  By a supplementary order of 15 June 1990, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor indicated the exact flats and the garage with which the applicant and his father were to be compensated, specifying the building in which they would be located and, in the case of the flats, also their precise surface area. 7.  On an unspecified date the municipal authorities opened blocked housing savings accounts with the State Savings Bank in the name of the applicant and his father. An amount equivalent to the estimated value of the expropriated real estate (BGL 16,878.20) was deposited in the housing savings account of the applicant’s father. The latter transferred BGL 8,878 into the applicant’s housing savings account. As the value of the flats and garage offered in compensation was higher than that of the expropriated property, the applicant and his father had to make top-up payments on unspecified dates in the amount of BGL 92,000. The nominal sum was increased considerably owing to the high inflation rate during the relevant period. 8.  In 1991 the municipal authorities took possession of the expropriated property and the buildings were pulled down. However, the construction of the school never started. 9.  While awaiting the construction of the flats the applicant, his family and parents were settled in a municipal council flat. The flat was much smaller than the total surface area of the flats offered in compensation and was situated in a building owned by the municipality which was in a poor state of repair. 10.  The applicant’s father died in 1992. In December 1999 his mother died, whereupon he became the sole owner of all the “future” real property allocated in compensation for the 1989 expropriation. 11.  The construction of the building in which the flats and the garage were to be located did not start as planned. 12.  The applicant made numerous complaints to the municipal authorities, to no avail. By a letter of 5 July 1999 the municipal company Sofinvest EOOD informed the applicant that the construction had not yet started and that no funding was available. 13.  Meanwhile, on 20 March 1995, the applicant requested the mayor to rescind the expropriation order in accordance with section 102 of the 1951 Property Act. On 9 November 1995 the mayor refused on the ground that the house had been demolished and the expropriated plot had been cleared for groundwork. According to the relevant legislation in force, the expropriation order could only be rescinded if the land had not been cleared for groundwork. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Sofia City Court. In a judgment of 10 June 1998 the Sofia City Court upheld the mayor’s refusal for the same reason. 14.  On 10 November 1998 the applicant filed a request with the local governor seeking restitution of the expropriated plot under the provisions of the 1997 Compensation for Expropriated Property Act. On 20 January 1999 the local governor refused on the ground that the expropriated property did not fall within the ambit of that Act. 15.  On 6 April 2001 the applicant filed another request with the municipality seeking to recover the expropriated plot. On 3 July 2001 the deputy mayor advised the applicant to renounce his claims to compensation for the demolished house in a notarised declaration. Although the applicant submitted the requested declaration, on 20 March 2002 the mayor refused to rescind the expropriation order because the house had been demolished and the plot cleared and occupied by the municipality. The applicant did not lodge an appeal with the courts against this refusal. 16.  On an unspecified date the municipal authorities sold the real property expropriated from the applicant’s family to a private third party who planned to build a block of flats on it. 17.  On a further request from the applicant the mayor of the municipality, in orders of 23 May and 8 June 2006, allocated two flats to him, equivalent to those originally due, in buildings under construction. As the municipality did not have any garages available, the orders did not concern the garage which the applicant was entitled to receive. 18.  On 3 April 2007 two flats apparently equivalent to those originally due were delivered to the applicant. As of March 2008 the garage remained undelivered.