CASE OF DIMITROV v. BULGARIA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev
4. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Sofia. 5. The applicant’s father owned a house with a yard and a garage in Sofia. 6. Pursuant to a decision of the mayor issued on 27 July 1978, the property was expropriated for the purposes of constructing a residential building. The order, based on section 98 (1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство – “the TUPA”), provided that the applicant’s father was to be compensated with a two-room flat and a garage in a building which the municipality planned to construct. 7. In a supplementary decision of 19 February 1979, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor specified the exact location, size and other details in respect of the flat to be provided by way of compensation. As no mention was made of a garage, the applicant’s father applied for judicial review of that decision. In a final judgment of 21 June 1979 the Sofia City Court found in his favour and referred the case back to the administrative authorities with instructions to specify the exact garage to be provided as compensation. 8. In 1982 the flat in question was constructed and handed over to the applicant’s father. 9. After 1992 the applicant’s father filed numerous requests with the municipal authorities asking them to specify the exact garage to be given to him. By a letter of 12 January 2008 the chief architect of Sofia informed him that no buildings with garages earmarked for the purpose of compensation were being constructed at the moment. 10. In 2008 the applicant’s father brought an action for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (Закон за отговорността на държавата и общините за вреди) for unlawful failure on the part of the Sofia municipality to fulfill its obligations to build and provide him with a garage. The action was dismissed in a final judgment of 21 June 2011 of the Supreme Administrative Court, on the grounds that no unlawful failure to act on the part of the authorities had been established. 11. In the meantime, on 7 April 2008 the applicant’s father passed away. The applicant is his only heir.