Lambrin Dimchev SOTIROV and Others v Bulgaria - 13999/05 [2011] ECHR 1233 (5 July 2011)

Lambrin Dimchev SOTIROV and Others v Bulgaria - 13999/05 [2011] ECHR 1233 (5 July 2011)

The application was inadmissible because the applicants lacked a proprietary interest in the temple for Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the actions complained of were not attributable to the State for Article 9, and all complaints were time-barred under Article 35 § 1 as the final domestic decision was delivered in June 2003 and the application was filed in April 2005.

Citation
[2011] ECHR 1233
Parties
Applicants: Lambrin Dimchev Sotirov and Others; Respondent: Bulgaria
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
05 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision as to Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Religion, Effective Remedy, Property Rights, Admissibility, Time Bar
Human Rights Law Religious Law Freedom of Religion Effective Remedy Property Rights Admissibility Time Bar

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lambrin Dimchev Sotirov and Others

Applicants

Bulgaria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision as to Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' removal from their temple and lack of State protection violated Article 9 (freedom of religion) and Article 13 (effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights; whether deprivation of use and governance of the temple violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (property rights); whether the application was admissible under Article 35 (time-limit and compatibility)

Ratio Decidendi

The application was inadmissible because the applicants lacked a proprietary interest in the temple for Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the actions complained of were not attributable to the State for Article 9, and all complaints were time-barred under Article 35 § 1 as the final domestic decision was delivered in June 2003 and the application was filed in April 2005.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible.

Orders

  • Application rejected as incompatible ratione materiae under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
  • Application rejected as incompatible ratione personae under Article 9.