FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 274/04
by Maria Petrova JELEVA and Others
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 December 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mrs Maria Petrova Jeleva, Mrs Zlatka Gospodinova Nikolova and Mrs Rositsa Gospodinova Krushkova, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1921, 1942 and 1946 respectively and live in Bourgas. They are represented before the Court by Mrs S. Margaritova-Vuchkova, a lawyer practising in Sofia.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are mother and two daughters. In December 1968 G.N., husband of the first applicant and father of the second and the third applicants, purchased from the Burgas municipality the three-room apartment the family had been living in as tenants since 1948. The flat had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out after 1947.
After the adoption of the Restitution Law (ЗВСОНИ), on an unspecified date in the beginning of 1993 Mrs I.M., heir of the former prenationalisation owner of the apartment, brought proceedings against G.N. under section 7 of that law.
On 31 January 1994 the Burgas District Court declared the claim inadmissible on the ground that I.M. had failed to establish her property rights and did not therefore have standing. Upon appeal by I.M., on 16 March 1994 the Burgas Regional Court upheld the decision on similar grounds. I.M. appealed further. In a decision of 6 July 1995 the Supreme Court (later the Supreme Court of Cassation – “the SCC”) remitted the case as it found that the question whether I.M. had a right to property fell to be examined on the merits of the claim. Judge S. sat in the panel which rendered the decision.
After a fresh examination of the case, on 24 April 1996 the District Court dismissed I.M.’s claim. She appealed. On 25 November 1996 the Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case finding that the first applicant should join the proceedings as she co-owned the apartment because she had been married to G. N. when he had bought it.
On 16 January 1997 the District Court constituted the first applicant as co-defendant. After G.N.’s death in March 1997 the second and third applicants also joined the proceedings.
In a judgment of 28 May 1997 the District Court dismissed the claim against the applicants holding that I.M. had not convincingly established her title to the property. Upon appeal by I.M., on 10 November 1997 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of the lower court. Upon further appeal by I.M., on 25 May 1999 the SCC quashed these judgements and remitted the case with instructions that further evidence be collected on I.M.’s right to property. Judge S. sat in the panel, which delivered the decision but the applicants did not seek her recusal.
Following a new examination of the case, in a judgment of 12 December 2000 the Regional Court recognised that I.M.’s ancestor had had title to the property prior to the nationalisation but dismissed the claim under section 7 of the Restitution Law on the ground that the sale of the apartment in 1968 had not been carried out in breach of the law. I.M. appealed.
On 30 April 2002 the SCC quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and decided to proceed with examining the case on the merits. In a final judgment of 17 July 2003 it found that the 1968 sale was null and void as it had been concluded in breach of the housing regulations in force at the time, because the apartment had been larger than permitted by law for a two-member family as by 1968 both the second and third applicants had left their parents’ household and the family consisted only of the first applicant and her husband.
In September 2003 the applicants applied to receive compensatory bonds with a face value of BGN 75,465 (approximately EUR 38,700). It appears that the request was granted.
In October 2003 the first applicant vacated the apartment.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings in their case had been excessively lengthy.
2. They also complained under Article 6 § 1 that in deciding on their case in 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation had not been impartial as one of the judges had been a member of the panel, which had rendered the previous decision of 6 July 1995. The applicants further complained that in its judgment of 17 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation had applied the law in an arbitrary manner.
3. The applicants complained, relying on Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that they had been deprived arbitrarily of their property with no adequate compensation.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the civil proceedings
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings, which reads, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of thiscomplaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
B. The remainder of the applicants’ complaints
The Court has examined the remainder of the applicants’ complaints as submitted by them. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning the length of the civil proceedings in their case;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Claudia Westerdiek	 Peer Lorenzen
	Registrar	President