BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF KIRILOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
(Applications
nos. 42908/98, 44038/98, 44816/98 and 7319/02)
JUDGMENT
(just
satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
14
June 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section),
sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S.
Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in four applications (nos. 42908/98, 44038/98,
44816/98 and 7319/02) against the Republic of Bulgaria, the first
three lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the
Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”), and the fourth with the Court under Article 34 of
the Convention.
- The
first application (no. 42908/98) was introduced on 16 July 1998 by
Mrs Daniela Evgenieva Kirilova, Mr Kamen Ivanov Kirilov and Ms Milena
Ivanova Schneider, Bulgarian nationals who were born respectively in
1937, 1961 and 1966. Mrs Kirilova died on 2 January 2001. Mr Kirilov
and Ms Schneider, who are Mrs Kirilova's son and daughter and at
present live respectively in Brunn am Gebirge and Kaltenleutgeben,
Austria, expressed their wish to pursue the
proceedings in their own name and in the name of the deceased Mrs
Kirilova.
- The
second application (no. 44038/98) was introduced on 19 June 1998 by
Mr Slave Ivanov Ilchev, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and
lives in Sofia.
- The
third application (no. 44816/98) was introduced on 17 July 1998 by Ms
Elisaveta Danailova Metodieva, a Bulgarian national who was born in
1930 and lives in Sofia.
- The
fourth application (no. 7319/02) was introduced on 13 November 2001
by Ms Teodora Alexandrova Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr Stefan
Alexandrov Shoilev, Bulgarian nationals who were born respectively in
1964 and 1968 and live in Sofia.
- The
applicants of the first, the second and the third applications were
represented by Ms N. Sedefova, Ms Z. Kalaydzhieva and Ms A.
Gavrilova-Ancheva, lawyers practising in Sofia. The applicants of the
fourth application were not legally represented. The Bulgarian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agents, Ms M. Dimova, Ms M. Karadzhova and Ms M. Kotseva,
of the Ministry of Justice.
- In
a judgment delivered on 9 June 2005 (“the principal judgment”),
the Court (former First Section) unanimously held that there had been
a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that
it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under
Article 13 of the Convention. More specifically, the Court held that,
because of the protracted failure of the State to build and deliver
the flats to which the applicants were entitled under decisions for
compensation for expropriated property, coupled with the lack of
effective domestic remedies for rectifying this situation and the
drawn out reluctance of the competent authorities to provide a
solution to the problem, the applicants had had to bear a special and
excessive burden which had upset the fair balance between the demands
of the public interest and the protection of the right to peaceful
enjoyment of possessions (Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria,
nos. 42908/98, 44038/98, 44816/98 and 7319/02, § 123, 9 June
2005).
- Under
Article 41 of the Convention the applicants sought various sums in
just satisfaction.
- Since
the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was
not ready for decision as regards pecuniary and non pecuniary
damage, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the
applicants to submit, within six months, their written observations
on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any
agreement they might reach (ibid., § 142 and point 4 of the
operative provisions).
- After
the parties' unsuccessful attempt to conclude a friendly settlement,
on 20 September 2006 the Government stated that they left it to the
Court to rule on the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The
applicants submitted their claims for just satisfaction on 12 and
15 December 2006. The Government did not file a reply.
THE LAW
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary damage
1. The expert reports
- In
support of their claims Mr Kirilov, Ms Schneider, Mr Ilchev and Ms
Metodieva submitted four expert reports prepared by Mr L. Sabev, an
expert dealing with the valuation of immovable property at the Sofia
City Court. These reports, dated 27 November 2006, firstly assessed
the present value of the flats due to the applicants, stating,
without further particulars, that it had been calculated on the basis
of the current market prices. They secondly estimated the amounts
which the applicants could have obtained in rent if they had leased
out these flats during the period 1 May 1992 1 September
2006 (as regards Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider) and 1 May 1992 –
27 November 2006 (as regards Mr Ilchev and Ms Metodieva), again
stating, without further particulars, that they had been calculated
on the basis of the market prices during that period. Thirdly, they
estimated the amounts which would have been due in rent by those
applicants who had been settled free of charge in municipal housing
(Mr Kirilov, Ms Schneider and Mr Ilchev). The report's estimates
broke down as follows:
|
|
Value of
flat on 27 November 2006
|
Estimated
rent for the period 1 May 1992 – 1 September or 27 November
2006
|
Estimated
rent for municipal housing
|
|
Mr Kirilov
and
Ms Schneider
|
BGN 204,000
|
BGN 67,689
|
BGN 39,770
|
|
Mr Kirilov
|
BGN 187,000
|
BGN 57,290
|
N/A
|
|
Mr Ilchev
|
BGN 162,000
|
BGN 60,762
|
BGN 16,818
|
|
Ms Metodieva
|
BGN 15,400
|
BGN 6,023
|
N/A
|
- In
support of their claims Ms Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr Shoilev also
submitted an expert report, again prepared by Mr L. Sabev. The
report, dated 10 March 2004, stated that, according to the market
prices during the relevant period, the rent which would have been
obtained by leasing out the flat due to these applicants in 2002 and
2003 would have been BGN 7,320.
2. The applicants' claims
- Mr
Kirilov and Ms Schneider stated that, having received the two flats
which were due to them on 30 August 2006, they did not claim any
amount in respect of their monetary equivalent.
- They
claimed 22,756 euros (EUR) (44,375 Bulgarian levs (BGN))
for the impossibility to use and enjoy the flat which was due to
their father and later to them and their mother from 1 May 1992 until
1 September 2006. This amount represented the difference between the
rent which they could have obtained by leasing this flat out and the
rent which they would have had to pay for the flat in which they (and
their father and mother before them) had been provisionally settled,
plus interest calculated according to the method proposed by Ms
Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr Shoilev (see paragraph 21 below).
- Mr
Kirilov separately claimed EUR 46,577 (BGN 91,058) for the
impossibility to use and enjoy the flat which was due to him from 1
May 1992 until 1 September 2006. This amount represented the rent
which he could have obtained by leasing this flat out, plus interest
calculated according to the method proposed by Ms Shoileva-Stambolova
and Mr Shoilev (see paragraph 21 below).
- Mr
Ilchev, who at the time of the latest communication from him
(15 December 2006) had still not received the flat which was due
to him, declared that he would prefer to receive a flat with
comparable characteristics. Failing that, he claimed EUR 82,865 (BGN
162,000), which, according to the expert report submitted by him, was
the current market value of the flat.
- Mr
Ilchev further claimed EUR 35,727 (BGN 69,846) for the impossibility
to use and enjoy the flat from 1 May 1992 until 27 November 2006,
plus EUR 215 (BGN 420) for each following month, until the delivery
of flat. This amount represented the difference between the rent
which he could have obtained by leasing this flat out and the rent
which he would have had to pay for the flat in which he had been
provisionally settled, plus interest calculated according to the
method proposed by Ms Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr Shoilev (see
paragraph 21 below).
- Ms
Metodieva, who at the time of the latest communication from her (15
December 2006) had still not received the flat which was due to her,
declared that she would prefer to receive a flat with comparable
characteristics. Failing that, she claimed EUR 7,877 (BGN 15,400),
which, according to the expert report submitted by her, was the
current market value of the flat.
- Ms
Metodieva further claimed EUR 4,897 (BGN 9,573) for the impossibility
to use and enjoy the flat from 1 May 1992 until 27 November 2006,
plus EUR 28 (BGN 55) for each following month, until the delivery of
the flat. This amount represented the rent which she could have
obtained by leasing this flat out, plus interest calculated according
to the method proposed by Ms Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr Shoilev (see
paragraph 21 below).
- Ms
Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr Shoilev did not claim compensation for the
value of the flat due to them, as they had received it on 26 May
2004. However, they claimed compensation for the impossibility to use
and enjoy the flat between 7 September 1992 and the date of the
Court's judgment. They stated that on 1 June 2004 their damage under
this head had amounted to EUR 19,385.01 and on 1 January 2007 –
to EUR 21,202.69. They arrived at these amounts by taking as a basis
the rent which they would have been able to perceive for the flat
during the relevant period, converting it in euros to offset
inflation, and adding to it, according to a special formula, compound
interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate for deposits in euros
(and German marks prior to the introduction of the euro).
3. The Government's position
- The
Government stated that they left the application of Article 41 of the
Convention to the Court's discretion. They did not express an opinion
on the applicants' claims.
4. The Court's assessment
(a) The existence and the heads of damage
- According
to the Court's settled case law, a judgment in which it finds a
breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an
end to the breach and to make reparation for its consequences in such
a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before
the breach (see, among many other authorities, Papamichalopoulos
and Others v. Greece (Article 50), judgment of 31 October
1995, Series A no. 330 B, p. 59, § 34; Iatridis v.
Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 32, ECHR
2000 XI; Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction)
[GC], no. 28342/95, § 19, ECHR 2001 I; Former King
of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC] (just satisfaction), no.
25701/94, § 72, 28 November 2002; and Doğan and Others
v. Turkey (just satisfaction), nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and
8815 8819/02, § 45, 13 July 2006). In the present case the
reparation should aim at putting the applicants in the position in
which they would have found themselves had the violation not occurred
(see Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, § 70 in
fine, ECHR 2004 III (extracts); and Popov v. Moldova
(no. 1) (just satisfaction), no. 74153/01, § 9 in
fine, 17 January 2006).
- The
Court notes that its finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 was based, firstly, on the fact that for many years after 7
September 1992, the date when the Convention and Protocol No. 1
entered into force in respect of Bulgaria, the authorities had failed
to deliver the flats due to the applicants in compensation for their
properties expropriated in 1983, 1985, 1988 and 1990 (see paragraph
109 of the principal judgment), and, secondly, on the fact that
throughout that period the authorities had not only adopted a passive
attitude, but had even actively resisted the applicants' endeavours
to compel them to comply with their obligations (see paragraphs 109,
120 and 121 of the principal judgment). The fact that during that
time some of the applicants had been settled in municipal housing
was, in the Court's view, not sufficient to mitigate those facts. On
the basis of these findings the Court concluded that the uncertainty
facing the applicants for many years, coupled with the lack of
effective domestic remedies for rectifying the situation and the
reluctance – even active resistance – of the competent
authorities to provide a solution to the problem for such a long
time, had caused the applicants to bear a special and excessive
burden which had upset the fair balance which has to be struck
between the demands of the public interest and the protection of the
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see paragraph 123 of the
principal judgment).
- The
applicants are therefore entitled to compensation in respect of the
pecuniary damage directly related to this violation of their rights
from 7 September 1992 until the end of the violation, namely the
dates when the flats in issue were or will be delivered to them. In
this connection, it should be noted that the State's obligations to
build and deliver the flats had matured before 7 September 1992, as
the decisions creating the applicants' entitlements had been made
long before that date (see paragraphs 15, 16, 25, 28, 41, 63, 65 and
77 of the principal judgment). Therefore, the Court must, in
assessing the damage sustained, take into account the entire period
between 7 September 1992 and the dates on which the flats were or
will be delivered (see, mutatis mutandis, Sporrong and
Lönnroth v. Sweden (Article 50), judgment of 18
December 1984, Series A no. 88, p. 12, § 22).
- The
pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants comprises, firstly, the
value of the flats which have, to date, still not been delivered:
those of Mr Ilchev and of Ms Metodieva. (Those of Mr Kirilov and Ms
Schneider were delivered on 30 August 2006, and the one of Ms
Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr Shoilev was delivered on 26 May 2004 (see
paragraph 71 of the principal judgment); these applicants accordingly
withdrew this part of their claims (see paragraphs 14 and 21 above).)
The damage secondly comprises the impossibility to use and enjoy the
flats before their delivery (see, mutatis mutandis, Prodan,
cited above, § 71; Prodan v. Moldova (striking out),
no. 49806/99, §§ 6 and 10, 25 April 2006; Popov
(no. 1), cited above, § 10; and Radanović v.
Croatia, no. 9056/02, § 62, 21 December 2006).
(b) Damage stemming from the continuing
failure of the State to deliver the flats of Mr Ilchev and Ms
Metodieva
- As
regards the damage stemming from the continuing failure of the
authorities to deliver the flats of Mr Ilchev and Ms Metodieva, the
Court considers that, in the circumstances, the best way to wipe out
the consequences of the breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 would
be for the respondent State to deliver the flats due to the
applicants, or equivalent flats. However, as the States are free to
choose the means whereby they will comply with a judgment of the
Court (see Papamichalopoulos and Others, p. 59, § 34; and
Brumărescu, § 20, both cited above), the Court holds
that if the respondent State does not make such delivery within three
months from the date on which this judgment becomes final, it must
pay the applicants a sum corresponding to the current value of the
flats. As to the determination of the exact amount of that
compensation, the Court notes that, according to the expert reports
submitted by Mr Ilchev and Ms Metodieva, on 27 November 2006 the
market value of their flats would have been respectively BGN 162,000
(EUR 82,829), and BGN 15,400 (EUR 7,874) (see paragraph 12 above).
However, even though the Government have not sought to challenge
these reports, the Court cannot for this reason alone accept without
question the estimates made by the expert (see Loizidou v. Turkey
(Article 50), judgment of 29 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1998 IV, p. 1817, § 32). It notes in this
connection that the expert did not include in his report any raw data
showing how he arrived at his estimates, but simply stated that they
were based on the current market prices. However, having regard to
the information available to it on prices on the Sofia and the
Nikopol property markets, the Court assesses the current market value
of Mr Ilchev's flat at BGN 160,000 (EUR 82,051) and that of Ms
Metodieva's flat at BGN 14,000 (EUR 7,179). Therefore, the
compensation which the Government should pay Mr Ilchev and
Ms Metodieva amounts respectively to EUR 82,051 and EUR 7,179,
plus any tax that may be chargeable.
(c) Damage resulting from the
impossibility to use and enjoy the flats between 7 September 1992 and
their delivery
- Concerning
the damage sustained on account of the impossibility to use and enjoy
the flats between 7 September 1992 and the dates on which they were
or will be delivered, the Court notes at the outset that the “periods
of damage” (see Sporrong and Lönnroth, cited above,
p. 11, § 20) are different for the individual applicants: for Mr
Kirilov and Ms Schneider that period came to an end on 30 August
2006, when their flats were delivered, and for Ms Shoileva-Stambolova
and Mr Shoilev – on 26 May 2004, when their flat was delivered
(see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy
[GC], no. 22774/93, § 79, ECHR 1999 V). For Mr Ilchev and
Ms Metodieva these periods are still continuing, as they have,
to this day, not received the flats to which they are entitled, or
compensation in lieu thereof. The Court must therefore, as regards
these two applicants, take into account the time up to the date of
its judgment.
- The
method proposed by most applicants for assessing this head of damage
consisted of estimating, on the basis of expert reports, the rent
which they could have obtained if they had leased the flats out,
converting it in euros, and adding to it, in accordance with a
special formula, compound interest at the prevailing commercial bank
rate in Bulgaria for deposits in euros (and German marks prior to the
introduction of the euro) (see paragraphs 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21
above).
- The
Court considers the approach based on the loss of rent reasonable,
but only on the assumption that the applicants would have indeed been
able to lease out the flats due to them (see Prodan, §
72; Popov (no. 1), § 11; and Radanović, §
63, all cited above). On this point, it notes that from the materials
in the file it appears that Mrs Kirilova, Mr Kirilov, Ms Schneider
and Mr Ilchev did not have independent alternative accommodation
during the entire period under consideration and, had they not been
settled in municipal housing free of charge (see paragraphs 17 and 26
of the principal judgment), they would have, in all probability,
lived in the flats instead of leasing them out. Similarly, Mr
Shoileva-Stambolova's and Mr Shoilev's father, who died in
February 1998, was offered to be settled in municipal housing, but
refused and leased a flat which he considered more suitable for his
needs (see paragraphs 64 and 68 of the principal judgment). It thus
seems that he also would have lived in the flat instead of leasing it
out. As regards the time after February 1998, it appears that Ms
Shoileva-Stambolova had alternative accommodation (see paragraph 66
of the principal judgment), but the same is not clear of Mr Shoilev.
The Court thus considers that Mr Kirilov, Ms Schneider, Mr Ilchev,
Ms Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr Shoilev have not made out their
contention that they would have indeed been able to lease their flats
out. Therefore, as regards these applicants, the assessment of this
head of damage cannot be based on the amount of lost rent.
Conversely, it appears that Ms Metodieva did have alternative
accommodation from the outset (see paragraph 40 of the principal
judgment) and could have therefore indeed tried to lease her flat
out.
- As
regards the damage sustained by Ms Metodieva, calculated on the basis
of the lost rent, the Court cannot accept without question the
expert's estimate on the market rent throughout the years. There are
also other factors which the Court must take into account. Firstly,
in the absence of market evidence to the contrary, Ms Metodieva would
have inevitably experienced certain delays in finding suitable
tenants and would have incurred certain expenses to maintain the
flat. Secondly, she would have been subjected to taxation on any
revenue (see Prodan, § 74; Popov (No. 1), §
13; and Radanović, § 65, all cited above). Having
regard to the information available to it on rental prices in Nikopol
throughout the period under consideration and bearing in mind the
above considerations, the Court considers it equitable to award Ms
Metodieva EUR 1,500, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
- Concerning
Mr Kirilov, Ms Schneider, Mr Ilchev, Ms Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr
Shoilev, the Court considers that, in the absence of conclusive proof
that they could have indeed leased their flats out (see paragraph 30
above), the damage sustained by them consists in the expenses
incurred for finding alternative accommodation. On this point it
notes that, once the expropriated properties had been demolished, Mrs
Kirilova, Mr Kirilov, Ms Schneider, Mr Ilchev and Ms
Shoileva-Stambolova's and Mr Shoilev's father were settled, or
offered to be settled, in municipal housing free of charge (see
paragraphs 17, 26 and 64 of the principal judgment). Ms
Shoileva-Stambolova had a flat since 1985 (see paragraph 66 of the
principal judgment) and hence did not have to incur expenses for
alternative accommodation after the death of her father in February
1998. The situation of Mr Shoilev in this respect is unclear, as he
has not provided to the Court any information on this point (Rule 60
§ 2 of the Rules of Court).
- In
sum, the above applicants have not established to the Court's
satisfaction that they were forced to incur expenses to find
accommodation pending the delivery of their flats. It may be true
that the municipal housing offered to them was not of the same
quality, size and location as the flats to which they were entitled.
However, the inconveniences suffered by them on this account form
part of their non-pecuniary damage (see Scollo v. Italy,
judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315 C, p. 56, §§
47 and 50). The Court nevertheless considers that the applicants have
suffered a certain loss of opportunity on account of not having been
able to use and enjoy the flats due to them for such long periods of
time. Having regard to the large number of imponderables involved and
the impossibility to quantify exactly this loss, the Court considers
that it must rule in equity. It therefore awards the following sums,
plus any tax that may be chargeable:
(i) jointly
to Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider, for their flat: EUR 9,000;
(ii) to
Mr Kirilov, for his flat: EUR 8,000;
(iii) to
Mr Ilchev: EUR 7,000;
(iv) jointly
to Ms Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr Shoilev: EUR 4,000.
B. Non pecuniary damage
1. The applicants' claims
- Mr
Kirilov, Ms Schneider, Mr Ilchev and Ms Metodieva asked the Court to
rule in line with its case law and in equity, and award them an
amount that it will consider just. They submitted that they had
experienced frustration in face of the prolonged failure of the State
to build and deliver the flats which were due to them. This
frustration had been exacerbated by their fruitless efforts over many
years to compel the authorities to comply with their obligations.
- Ms
Shoileva-Stambolova and Mr Shoilev asked the Court to award an amount
that it will consider equitable. They invited it to take account of
the fact that the violation found in the principal judgment had
additionally had a negative impact on their civil and professional
dignity.
2. The Government's position
- The
Government stated that they left the application of Article 41 of the
Convention to the Court's discretion. They did not express an opinion
on the applicants' claims.
3. The Court's assessment
- The
Court considers that the breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 caused
each of the applicants definite non pecuniary damage arising
from the feeling of helplessness and frustration in the face,
firstly, of the prolonged failure of the authorities to deliver the
flats to which they were entitled and, secondly, of the authorities'
marked reluctance to solve their problem for such a long time. Some
of the applicants were further distressed by the need to live in
worse conditions, in the municipal housing where they were lodged
(see, mutatis mutandis, Scollo, cited above, p. 56, §§
47 and 50). Finally, Mr Ilchev and Ms Metodieva must have been
disgruntled by the years of fruitless judicial proceedings whereby
they tried to remedy the situation they were in. In view of the
impossibility to assess the precise extent of damage sustained by
each applicant, the Court, ruling in equity, awards each of them EUR
2,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
C. Costs and expenses
- None
of the applicants claimed costs and expenses for the proceedings
under Article 41 of the Convention.
- The
Government did not comment either.
- The
Court sees no reason to make an award under this head in the absence
of a claim by the applicants.
D. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Holds that the respondent State is to deliver to
Mr Slave Ivanov Ilchev and Ms Elisaveta Danailova Metodieva, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the ownership
and possession of the flats which are due to them, or of equivalent
flats;
- Holds
(a) that,
failing such delivery, the respondent State is to pay Mr Slave Ivanov
Ilchev and Ms Elisaveta Danailova Metodieva, within the same period
of three months, the following amounts:
(i) to
Mr Slave Ivanov Ilchev, EUR 82,051 (eighty two thousand
fifty one euros);
(ii) to
Ms Elisaveta Danailova Metodieva, EUR 7,179 (seven thousand one
hundred seventy nine euros);
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts in
respect of pecuniary damage for the impossibility to use and enjoy
the flats in issue:
(i) jointly
to Mr Kamen Ivanov Kirilov and Ms Milena Ivanova Schneider, EUR 9,000
(nine thousand euros);
(ii) to
Mr Kamen Ivanov Kirilov, EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros);
(iii) to
Mr Slave Ivanov Ilchev, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros);
(iv) to
Ms Elisaveta Danailova Metodieva, EUR 1,500 (one thousand five
hundred euros);
(v) jointly
to Ms Teodora Alexandrova Shoileva Stambolova and Mr Stefan
Alexandrov Shoilev, EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros);
(vi) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the
following amounts in respect of non pecuniary damage:
(i) jointly
to Mr Kamen Ivanov Kirilov and Ms Milena Ivanova Schneider, EUR 4,000
(four thousand euros);
(ii) to
Mr Slave Ivanov Ilchev, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros);
(iii) to
Ms Elisaveta Danailova Metodieva, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros);
(iv) jointly
to Ms Teodora Alexandrova Shoileva Stambolova and Mr Stefan
Alexandrov Shoilev, EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros);
(v) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants'
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
