European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BOZHILOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

(Application no. 56383/15)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

5 September 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bozhilov and Others v. Bulgaria,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
 Yonko Grozev,
 Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 56383/15) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 5 November 2015 by nine Bulgarian nationals and a Bulgarian limited liability company ("the applicants" -� see the appended table) who were represented by Ms M. Milanova, a lawyer practising in Sofia;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Bulgarian Government ("the Government"), represented by their Agent, Ms V. Hristova from the Ministry of Justice;

the parties' observations;

Having deliberated in private on 4 July 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case is of the type examined in Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 66581/12 and 25054/15, 14 May 2020) and concerns the adequacy of compensation for expropriation under the State Property Act. In 2013 the Council of Ministers expropriated two plots of land in the vicinity of Sofia owned by the applicants, totalling 4,613 square metres, for the construction of a road, granting compensation of 4,737 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent to 2,423 euros (EUR), that is at a rate of about BGN 1.02 (EUR 0.52) per square metre. The compensation was not calculated on the basis of the prices of comparable plots, since it was found that no such plots had been the subject of transactions in the period preceding the expropriation, but under the Regulation on the calculation of the value of agricultural land (hereinafter "the Regulation"; for more details see Kostov and Others, cited above, §§ 30-�32).

2.  In a final judgment of 5 May 2015, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Council of Ministers' decision, including the level of compensation. It found that the applicants' land was "agricultural land within the urban territory", and confirmed that the Regulation was applicable, since no plots of such a type had been the subject of transactions within the relevant period preceding the expropriation.

3.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, relying in addition on Article 6 § 1 and 17 of the Convention, that the compensation for their expropriated land was too low.

THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT

4.  The complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone (see Kostov and Others, cited above, §§ 94-96).

5.  The application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

6.  The relevant domestic law and practice and the criteria concerning the adequacy of compensation for expropriation under the State Property Act have been described in Kostov and Others (cited above). In particular, the Court reiterated that the taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value would normally constitute a disproportionate interference, and that the amount of compensation had to be calculated on the basis of the value of the property at the date on which ownership of it was lost (ibid., §§ 62-63).

7.  In the individual cases examined in Kostov and Others (cited above), where the Regulation had been applied as well, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It considered that, despite the lack of sufficient number of market comparators meeting the requirements of the State Property Act, there were serious indications that the market value of the applicants' land was likely to have been much higher than the compensation awarded. That compensation did not therefore meet the requirement of being reasonably related to the value of the applicants' land (ibid., §§ 81-87 and the conclusion reached in § 91).

8.  The Court therefore has to assess in the present case, on the basis of the facts submitted by the parties, whether there are sufficient indicators that the actual value of the applicants' land could have been significantly higher than the compensation calculated under the Regulation.

9.  As noted (see paragraph 1 above), the compensation granted to the applicants was equivalent to BGN 1.02 (EUR 0.52) per square metre.

10.  In order to justify such compensation, the Government stated that the amount paid to the applicants under the Regulation had been calculated in the light of objective standards.

11.  The applicants pointed out that their land was situated in the vicinity of Sofia and was "close to commercial and industrial sites". They referred to several additional circumstances to substantiate their claim that the compensation awarded had not been adequate. First, two expert valuations prepared for the domestic proceedings, referring to transactions with urbanised land considered by the experts to be comparable to the applicants', had set the value of the expropriated land at BGN 215 (EUR 110) and BGN 138 (EUR 70) respectively per square metre. The Supreme Administrative Court had however not used these conclusions, pointing out that they did not concern "agricultural land within the urban territory". Second, the value of the applicants' land for the purposes of taxation had at the time been between BGN 19 (EUR 9.7) and BGN 21 (10.7) per square metre. Third, in several cases concerning land neighbouring the applicants' plots, expropriated on the strength of the same decision of the Council of Ministers and for the same infrastructure project, the Supreme Administrative Court had awarded compensation ranging between BGN 14.6 (EUR 7.5) and BGN 53.4 (EUR 27) per square metre. And fourth, land in the same area had been rented out for a monthly price of BGN 1 (EUR 0.52) per square metre -� the same as the level of compensation awarded to the applicants -� as seen from a rent contract submitted by the applicants dated 29 May 2015.

12.  The Court is of the view that the information submitted by the applicants is sufficient for it to conclude that the real market value of their expropriated land could have been substantially higher than the compensation awarded in the national procedure. In particular, while the Supreme Administrative Court ignored the two expert reports the applicants relied on, noting that the status of the applicants' land was different, the Court does not find the question of such a status specifically relevant; what matters for it is the value of the land, and in that regard the expert reports, describing similar plots of land, clearly provide relevant data. In addition, even though in Kostov and Others (cited above, § 89) the Court noted that the value of the applicants' land for taxation purposes was not necessarily indicative of a market price, here it is only one of the elements justifying the Court's conclusion. Lastly, it should be noted that, apart from relying on the fact that the Regulation referred to objective criteria (see paragraph 10 above), the Government have provided no proof that the compensation awarded to the applicants at the domestic level bore a sufficient link to the actual value of the land.

13.  Accordingly, the Court concludes that the compensation awarded to the applicants for their expropriated land was not reasonably related to the land's value, which means that the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see paragraph 6 above) have not been met and the deprivation of the applicants of their property was a disproportionate measure.

14.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  The applicants claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, jointly for all of them.

16.  In addition, they claimed BGN 9,599 (EUR 4,910) for the costs incurred before the Court, namely for their legal representation and for translation. In support of this claim the applicants presented a contract for legal representation and an invoice. They requested that any amount awarded under this head be paid directly to their legal representative, Ms M. Milanova.

17.  The Government contested the claims as exaggerated.

18.  Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court awards 3,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage, jointly to all applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

19.  In addition, having regard to the documents in its possession and the circumstances of the case, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 2,500 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. As requested, that amount is to be paid directly to the applicants' legal representative.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
3. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) jointly to all applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicants' legal representative;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Olga Chernishova Ioannis Ktistakis
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applicants