VELIKOVI AND OTHERS V. BULGARIA - 43278/98 [2007] ECHR 218 (15 March 2007)

VELIKOVI AND OTHERS V. BULGARIA - 43278/98 [2007] ECHR 218 (15 March 2007)

The Court distinguished between cases based on the manner in which property was acquired and the conduct of the State administration. It found no violation where applicants had abused regulations or received adequate compensation, but found violations where State irregularities or excessive interpretation of the Restitution Law led to annulment of titles. The Court held that the threshold of hardship was not reached in some cases due to partial compensation and alternative accommodation. It was not necessary to examine Articles 13 and 14 separately.

Citation
[2007] ECHR 218
Parties
Applicants: Velikovi and Others; Respondent: Bulgaria
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
15 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Chamber Judgment
Outcome
Mixed: Violations and no violations found depending on the facts of each application.
Legal Topics
Protection of Property, Restitution of Nationalised Property, Discrimination, Right to an Effective Remedy, Right of Access to a Court
Human Rights Law Property Law Protection of Property Restitution of Nationalised Property Discrimination Right to an Effective Remedy Right of Access to a Court

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Velikovi and Others

Applicants

Bulgaria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Chamber Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application of the Restitution Law violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)
  2. 2 Whether there was discrimination contrary to Article 14
  3. 3 Whether there was a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court distinguished between cases based on the manner in which property was acquired and the conduct of the State administration. It found no violation where applicants had abused regulations or received adequate compensation, but found violations where State irregularities or excessive interpretation of the Restitution Law led to annulment of titles. The Court held that the threshold of hardship was not reached in some cases due to partial compensation and alternative accommodation. It was not necessary to examine Articles 13 and 14 separately.

Court Disposition

Mixed: Violations and no violations found depending on the facts of each application.

Orders

  • In four cases where a violation was found, the question of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision regarding damage claims.
  • Applicants in those four cases were awarded a total of EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses.