Committee of Ministers Secrétariat Du Comité Des Ministres

SECRETARIAT / SECRÉTARIAT

SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRÉTARIAT DU COMITÉ DES MINISTRES

Contact: John Darcy Tel: 03 88 41 31 56

Date: 07/02/2020 DH-DD(2020)112

Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Meeting: 1369th meeting (March 2020) (DH)

Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (21/01/2020) in the YORDANOVA AND OTHERS group of cases v. Bulgaria (Application No. 25446/06) and response from the authorities (05/02/2020)

Information made available under Rules 9.2 and 9.6 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Document distribué sous la seule responsabilité de son auteur, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.

Réunion : 1369e réunion (mars 2020) (DH)

Communication d’une ONG (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) (21/01/2020) relative au groupe d’affaires YORDANOVA ET AUTRES c. Bulgarie (requête n° 25446/06) et réponse des autorités (05/02/2020) [anglais uniquement]

Informations mises à disposition en vertu des Règles 9.2 et 9.6 des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables.

COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE DEPARTMENT FOR THE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS 1369TH (DH) MEETING OF THE DELEGATES 3-5 MARCH 2020

DGI 21 JAN. 2020

21 JANUARY 2020 SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH

OBSERVATIONS

OF THE BULGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTION OF THE GROUP OF JUDGMENTS “YORDANOVA AND OTHERS V. BULGARIA”

This group of cases concerns interference into the applicants’ private lives and homes through demolition orders leading to possible removal from their only homes and rendering them homeless. The Yordanova and Others case concerns planned eviction of dozens of Roma families from their “illegal” homes whereas Ivanova and Cherkezov case concerns the planned demolition of the applicants’ only house built without the necessary building permits. In both cases, the Court found violations of Article 8 of the Convention due to the fact that the domestic authorities did not undertake a proportionality assessment before issuing demolition orders. In Yordanova, the Court, when considering Article 46 of the Convention, indicated that general measures for the execution of this judgment “[…] should include such amendments to the relevant domestic law and practice so as to ensure that orders to recover public land or buildings, where they may affect Convention-protected rights and freedoms, should, even in cases of unlawful occupation, identify clearly the aims pursued, the individuals affected and the measures to secure proportionality” (§ 166).

The Yordanova case exhibits perhaps the most serious problem with Roma integration in Bulgaria – housing in general and the security of tenure in particular. The fact that the current legal framework offers a possibility for demolition of any house on the sole basis that it is “illegal”, without regard to when and under what circumstances it was built, for how long it was tolerated by the local authorities and whether it was the only home of the families, which

are to be evicted, presents a serious risk of violations of Article 8 and, possibly, also of Article 3 of the Convention for hundreds of thousands of people. Although there are disputes as to the precise share of Roma who live in “illegal” houses, it would perhaps be safe to conclude that around one-half of the Roma community may potentially be affected by such measures. In addition to a possible loss of one’s only home, as the recent experience indicates, this situation affects also other rights of the persons living in such dwellings – their possibility to obtain personal documents, their access to communal services and their right to vote.

These observations are prepared by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC), a human rights NGO, which provided legal assistance to the applicants in all the cases in this group. The BHC assists applicants in other similar cases before the domestic authorities, as well as before the European Court of Human Rights. In 2019, it assisted a total of 59 victims of forced removals, all of them Roma, in three applications before the Court. Two of them were given priority and communicated the same year. In one of the cases, Paketova and Others v. Bulgaria, the Court indicated interim measures on behalf of 16 applicants. In order to facilitate the delegates’ appraisal of the execution of this group of judgments, the current submission provides:

 Summary of the recent developments with forced evictions in Bulgaria related to the subject matter of the cases in this group.  An assessment of the Government’s addendum to the Action Plan, submitted on 9 January 2020 in light of some important legal developments, which are not mentioned in it.  Recommendations on further action by the Committee of Ministers.

1. Summary of the recent developments with forced evictions in Bulgaria related to the subject matter of the cases in this group

Forced evictions, mostly of Roma, from their only homes increased over the past year and a half due to a variety of political and economic factors. The most serious of them was the expulsion of more than 100 Roma from the village of Vojvodinovo, near Plovdiv. This took place after a criminal incident, during which a 33-year old commando from the special forces was injured on a street of the village by two Roma men on 6 January 2019. The two Roma were immediately arrested, charged and sentenced in early April 2019 to suspended prison sentences. The incident provoked anger among the local Bulgarian population. On the same

day, at 6 pm, a crowd of locals began to gather to protest in the center of the village. Radical racist groups from Plovdiv also took part in the protests. Police and gendarmerie arrived to secure public order. Protesters were walking the streets of the village chanting anti-Roman slogans. Later in the evening, the mayor of the village went to the Roma neighborhood and told all the Roma to leave the village immediately. This happened on the same and on the next day. The expelled Roma found temporary shelter with relatives, friends in barracks and abandoned buildings in Plovdiv, in settlements near Plovdiv and in other villages. Many, including children, were forced to sleep on the floor in unheated rooms in the middle of winter. Two days later, the Deputy Prime Minister of Bulgaria Krasimir Karakachanov of the VMRO nationalist party visited the village. There, he ordered an immediate "clean-up" of the illegal buildings in Vojvodinovo and said: "The Gypsies in Bulgaria have become extremely insolent and the tolerance of Bulgarian society has run out." Within the next two days, the mayor of the Maritsa Municipality issued four orders declaring 15 buildings in the Roma neighborhood “dangerous for the inhabitants”. They were immediately demolished in front of the cameras of the major national TV networks. For the rest, the mayor issued 17 demolition orders on the basis that they had been illegally built. They were stuck on the empty buildings. With several other orders the electricity and the water supply of the entire Roma neighbourhood of Vojvodinovo was cut off. Affected Roma were all prevented from returning to their homes a month later. Some of them were deprived of the possibility to participate in the administrative procedure. In the absence of their inhabitants, some of the buildings collapsed and others were burned out by villagers. The Roma victims initiated several dozens of proceedings before the Administrative Court - Plovdiv on a variety of issues: against orders for removal of buildings under Article 225a Territorial Organisation Act (TOA); against actions of local authorities and police preventing the return of people to their homes under Article 250 of the Administrative Procedure Code; against orders for the demolition of dangerous construction works and against demolitions on the grounds of orders under Article 196, para. 3 TOA.1 With regard to the specific subject matter of the cases of the Yordanova group, 18 court proceedings were initiated on complaints of the Roma inhabitants of houses targeted for demolition (one demolition order was challenged by two victims). To date, 16 of these complaints have been dismissed, without

1 See the following cases of the Plovdiv Administrative Court: 489/2019, 490/2019, 491/2019, 492/2019, 493/2019, 494/2019, 495/2019, 496/2019, 497/2019, 498/2019, 499/2019, 500/2019, 501/2019, 502/2019, 503/2019, 504/2019, 505/2019, 691/2019, 692/2019, 693/2019, 694/2019, 695/2019, 696/2019, 697/2019, 698/2019, 699/2019, 700/2019, 701/2019, 716/2019, 717/2019, 718/2019, 719/2019, 720/2019, 721/2019, 289/2019, 291/2019, 293/2019, 294/2019, 296/2019, 299/2019, 300/2019, 301/2019, 310/2019, 311/2019, 318/2019, 320/2019, 321/2019, 322/2019, 323/2019, 324/2019, 485/2019, 512/2019, 513/2019, 916/2019, 1144/2019, 1145/2019, 1146/2019.

examining at all the proportionality of the measure. Fifteen of these cases have reached the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). In two of them the SAC has already issued final judgments dismissing them without taking into consideration the necessity and proportionality of the demolition orders, as well as the existence of an ulterior purpose (punishment) behind each one of them (Nos. 9344/2019, SAC and 8163/2019, SAC). In April 2019, 56 residents of Vojvodinovo applied to the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 3, 8, 14 and 18 of the Convention. The Court gave this case a priority and granted interim measures for 16 of the most vulnerable applicants asking the government to ensure alternative accommodation to all of them and to consider as quickly as possible their applications for municipal housing. None of this has happened. Instead, the Government in the subsequent proceedings asked the Court to lift the interim measures, claiming that all the Roma from Vojvodinovo had departed voluntarily from the village.

In 2019, forced evictions of Roma in big numbers took place in several other Bulgarian cities. On 15 April 2019, according to media reports, the demolition of 54 illegally built houses in the Roma neighborhood of Lozenets in Stara Zagora took place. The municipality claimed that it had offered municipal housing or plots of land for construction of legal houses, but there had been no interest among the affected families. By April 15, during the mandate of the current mayor of Stara Zagora, 172 “illegal” Roma houses had been demolished. At least 200 more had been targeted for demolition, with 93 expected to be demolished in 2020.2 Demolitions of illegally built houses took place also in Plovdiv in April and December 2019.3 On 12 September 2019, according to media reports, 38 “illegal” buildings were demolished in the Roma neighborhood of “Maksuda” in Varna. Of all inhabitants, only one person with disabilities was accommodated in an institution.4 On 24 July 2019, 20 “illegal” houses on “Tamara” Street in the “Komluka” district were removed in Burgas. The buildings were solid brick houses built on terrains intended for street infrastructure. The director of the Vazrazhdane district, Magdalena Manolova, stated that the actions were taken after the completion of all legal procedures. Only one of the families appealed the demolition order, but the court ruled in favour of Burgas Municipality.5 Over the past several years, the Burgas Municipality has

2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCnckdPfoa4, accessed on 17 January 2020 (in Bulgarian). 3 https://www.plovdiv24.bg/novini/plovdiv/Bageri-i-naprezhenie-v-Shekera-859656; https://www.plovdiv24.bg/novini/plovdiv/Babata-koyato-bagerite-ostaviha-bez-dom-Otivame-direktno-na- grobishtata-920682, accessed on 17 January 2020 (in Bulgarian). 4 https://www.dnes.bg/stranata/2019/09/12/sybariat-38-nezakonni-postroiki-v-romskata-mahala-na- varna.422616, accessed on 17 January 2020 (in Bulgarian). 5 https://www.standartnews.com/balgariya-obshtestvo/butat-nezakonni-romski-postroyki-v-burgas-397810.html, accessed on 17 January 2020 (in Bulgarian).

allegedly demolished more than 400 illegal buildings in the Roma neighbourhoods of Gorno Ezerovo, Pobeda district and the Roma part of the Meden Rudnik neighbourhood.6 In many cases these were the only homes of their inhabitants.

2. On the Government’s addendum to the Action Plan

The Government tries to argue the existence of progress in the implementation of the judgments in this group based on a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) No. 11731 of 3 October 2018. This, according to the Government, is “an important breakthrough in the case- law of the Supreme Administrative Court”, which had an impact on other similar decisions. Indeed, in this case, the SAC decided the case on the merits and repealed a demolition order targeting the only house of a Roma family because: 1) in the administrative procedure for its issuance, the administrative body failed to strike a balance between the interest of the affected family and the public interests, and 2) the necessity and proportionality of the measure was not discussed by the first-instance court. The SAC came up with some criteria for assessment of the proportionality of the demolition orders, which are mentioned in the Government’s submission. The October 2018 decision of the SAC is certainly a step forward, although the criteria it formulates do not address all the concerns of the Yordanova and Ivanova and Cherkezov judgments. These criteria, even if followed by the administrative authorities, would still allow for violations of Article 8 in some cases.

The Government submits that there are at least three other SAC decisions upholding the same position and providing nearly identical list of criteria for balancing. It also refers to some draft law on the amendment of the Territorial Organisation Act (TOA), allegedly containing provisions aiming at striking a fair balance between the rights of the persons affected through demolitions of illegal buildings and the public interest.

The Government’s account of the recent developments of the case-law is one-sided and repetitive. It does not add anything substantial to its submission of 6 March 2019 where we read about the same SAC decision and the same legislative initiatives. No interested NGO or a representative of victims of forced evictions has ever seen the draft law referred to in that, as

6 https://trud.bg/%d1%81%d1%8a%d0%b1%d0%be%d1%80%d0%b8%d1%85%d0%b0-20- %d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%b7%d0%b0%d0%ba%d0%be%d0%bd%d0%bd%d0%b8- %d0%ba%d1%8a%d1%89%d0%b8-%d0%b2-%d0%ba%d0%b2%d0%b0%d1%80%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%bb- %d0%ba%d0%be/, accessed on 17 January 2020 (in Bulgarian).

well as in the present submission of the Government. It is not a public document and continues to be so more than a year and a half since 28 June 2018, the date on which the Minister of Regional Development and Public Works allegedly issued his order for the establishment of the interdepartmental working group. Since then, the minister changed, however the content of this mythical draft law continued to be known only in a very general form through the sketchy accounts, which the Government provides in its submissions to the Committee of Ministers.

Rather than being an important breakthrough, the SAC decision of 3 October 2018 seems to be an isolated case, which did not create a precedent. Since then, there have been dozens of other SAC decisions in the opposite direction, i.e. accepting the possibility for demolition of a house on the sole ground that it is unlawfully built and without considering the attendant circumstances of its construction, as well as the personal situation of its inhabitants.

The three SAC decisions to which the Government refers as a follow up to its October 2018 decision concern the annulment of court decisions dismissing appeals from victims of forced evictions against administrative orders for the removal of illegal constructions on the basis of procedural violations committed by the first-instance court. These SAC decisions do not consider the lack of appreciation of the proportionality of the interference with the rights of the persons concerned as a ground for revocation of orders. Thus, in one of the proceedings cited in the Government’s submission (No. 14679/2018, SAC), after the case was returned, the first- instance court again dismissed the appeal against the demolition order on the ground that "the law does not provide for a ban on the removal of illegal constructions, even if they are the sole dwellings of their owners or occupants" (No. 534/2019, Pazardzhik Administrative Court). The second court proceedings cited by the Government (No. 14131/2019, SAC) has not yet been re-decided. In the third proceedings cited by the Government (No. 9569/2019, SAC), the court of first instance definitively dismissed the appeal against the demolition order on the ground that the applicant had been registered at another address (No. 2368/2019, Pazardzhik Administrative Court).

The current situation with the assessment of the proportionality of the interference into the rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention in the administrative procedure for removal of illegal constructions, is most clearly illustrated by what happened in the village of Vojvodinovo after the expulsion of more than 100 Roma in January 2019 (see above). Neither the demolition orders, nor the subsequent court proceedings considered in any way the necessity and the proportionality of the forced evictions.

Another example of a complete lack of any regard for the necessity and proportionality of the demolition order and in the subsequent court proceedings, is Decision No. 2046 of 9 November 2018 of the Burgas Administrative Court. It concerns one of the demolitions in the Gorno Ezerovo neighbourhood of the Burgas Municipality. The decision was issued one month after the alleged “breakthrough” of the SAC. The applicant, whose house was to be demolished by an order of the deputy-mayor of the Burgas Municipality, claimed explicitly that it was the only home of his family of 11 and that the demolition order contradicted Article 6, para. 2 of the Administrative Procedure Code. The court rejected the appeal. It stated in a purely formalistic way that the order was issued by a competent authority, in a form prescribed by law, that “there had been no essential violations of the rules of administrative procedure” and that “the substantive law was correctly applied”.7 In this case too the court paid no attention to the applicant’s arguments that his family will be rendered homeless and that the court must apply the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 6, para. 2 of the Administrative Procedure Code.

Similarly, with its recent Decision of 30 October 2019 in Case No.1141/2019 the Varna Administrative Court upheld a demolition order of the mayor of the Mladost district in Varna for the removal of an “illegal” one-story house of a Roma family built in 1994 and occupied as their only home permanently since then. The court considered the applicant’s arguments for a violation of Article 8 of the Convention but rejected them. It argued that the demolition order constituted an interference into their right to private life and to a home, but that it was justified “[…] because the fact that M. and her family lived for more than 20 years in the building at issue does not make of it a legal building. On the other hand, the purpose [of the order] is to protect the live and the health of the applicant herself and of all other persons living in the building at issue, as well as the life and the health of all other citizens”.8

In a number of recent decisions, the SAC interpreted Article 8 of the Convention as offering protection only in cases in which the applicants are either lawful bearers of limited property rights or regularly paying tenants. In both cases, before claiming protection the applicants have to show that they have strictly abided by law.9

7 Burgas Administrative Court, Decision No. 2046/09.11.2018, adm. case No. 1705/2018. 8 Varna Administrative Court, Decision of 30.10.2019 г. adm. case No. 1141/2019. 9 SAC, Decision No. 14889/04.12.2018; SAC, Decision No. 1548/06.02.2019; SAC, Decision No. 14122/22.10.2019.

3. Conclusions and recommendations

Forced evictions from the only homes of vulnerable families in Bulgaria and especially of Roma, continue to be a serious problem. The law continues to allow for the demolition of such homes on the sole basis that they are illegally built without regard to the personal circumstances of their inhabitants. The relevant provisions are routinely applied as such through demolition orders and in administrative court proceedings on appeal. No amendments of the legislation were made as required by the Yordanova judgment for almost eight years since its delivery. Despite some progressive pronouncements, such as Decision No. 11731 of 3 October 2018 of the SAC, they remained isolated cases and cannot supplement the legislative reform.

The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee is of the view that the time has come for the Committee of Ministers to adopt an interim resolution on this group of cases. We believe that such a measure will encourage the government to prepare the necessary amendments of the legislation in consultation with all stakeholders, including the affected vulnerable communities.

Krassimir Kanev, Chairperson Bulgarian Helsinki Committee 7 Varbitsa Street, 1504 Sofia, Bulgaria

SUBMISSIONS OF THE BULGARIAN GOVERNMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE BULGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS WITH RESPECT TO THE EXECUTION OF THE GROUP OF CASES YORDANOVA AND OTHERS V. BULGARIA (25446/06)

The Bulgarian Government would like to take the opportunity to provide the Committee of Ministers with some comments regarding the allegation of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (the BHC) in their communications of 21 January in respect of the execution of the group of cases Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria. DGI 05 FEV. 2020

1. Preliminary remarks SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH The Government point out that the subject-matter of the general measures required by the Yordanova and others group of judgments consists in ensuring that orders to recover public land or buildings or to remove unlawful buildings, where they may affect Convention-protected rights and freedoms, should, even in cases of unlawful occupation, identify clearly the aims pursued, the individuals affected and the measures to secure proportionality. The Government respectfully submit that questions such as the access to communal services, the rights to vote and the rules on obtaining personal documents are beyond the scope of the execution of this group of cases.

On the subject of the applications regarding forced removal submitted in 2019 before the ECHR the Government note the following.

The case Paketova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 17808/19) is currently pending before the ECHR and the exchange of observations is still ongoing. The application was submitted by 55 applicants and the Court indicated an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court with respect to 16 of them. The Government submitted their first observations, in which they contested the applicants’ allegations regarding the facts of the case and made a number of objections on the admissibility and merits of the complaints. In view of the fact that the case is still pending we wish to reserve our comments on it for our submissions to the Court and to abstain from discussing it outside of the contentious proceedings until the EHCR has had the opportunity to rule on its admissibility and merits.

The second application related to eviction communicated to Government in 2019 is Hristova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 34579/19). On 3 July 2019 the Court indicated an interim measure under Rule 39 and requested additional information by the Government and the 6 applicants. On 16 July 2019 after an exchange of submissions by the parties the Court decided to lift the interim measure. According to the Court’s database on the state of proceedings the application was declared inadmissible on 21 November 2019.

The Government have not been informed of a third Yordanova and Others type application to the Court and are unable to comment on that allegation of the BHC.

2. On the allegations regarding recent developments related to forced evictions in Bulgaria

The Government have already provided reasons for their wish to abstain from commenting in detail on the events in Voyvodinovo, which are at the centre of the Paketova and Others case. However, it should be noted that most proceedings initiated pursuant to the applicants’ appeals against the demolition orders at domestic level are still pending. Pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity the national authorities should be given the opportunity to examine them and apply for themselves the Convention standards developed by the case-law of the Court.

The Government would like, however, to dispute the BHC’s statements regarding the two cases, in which the Supreme Administrative Court (the SAC) issued final judgments on the appeals against the demolition orders. While the appeals were indeed dismissed, it is quite inaccurate to say that the SAC did not take into consideration the necessity and proportionality of the demolition orders. In both cases the SAC did not decline to make a proportionality analysis of the contested administrative measures. It also expressly examined the question whether the first instance court (the Plovdiv Administrative Court) had made efforts to gather evidence in that respect and had carried out such an analysis. In both cases the SAC noted that there was no evidence that the buildings designated for demolition had been the applicants’ only homes. In both instances the appellants had their permanent address registered at the buildings designated for demolition but their current addresses were elsewhere. No proof was found that the buildings had been inhabited by the appellants for a substantial period of time. In relation to that the SAC noted that the Plovdiv Administrative Court had provided instructions to the appellants on the distribution of the burden of proof in the case. In addition, the first instance

DH-DD(2020)112: Rules 9.2 and 9.6 NGO and reply from the authorities in Yordanova & Others v. Bulgaria. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. court had made reasonable efforts to collect evidence in that respect of its own motion including by requesting information by the relevant utilities companies and the municipal tax administration. The appellants’ legal representative did not seek to submit evidence on that matter. Despite the fact that the representative was invited on two occasions to state which of their two registered addresses the appellants used as their homes he declined to do so. Next, in both cases the SAC noted that there was no data that the buildings designated for demolition had been inhabited by vulnerable persons. The appellants had not sought to legalise the buildings. In addition, it was established that the municipality had in the past offered to assign construction rights on municipal terrains to the appellants’ families. They had not made use of that opportunity. In view of those considerations it appears that the SAC provided pertinent and sufficient reasons that the interference with the appellants’ Convention rights was not disproportionate.

The Government admit that in their first observations on the Paketova and Others case they requested that the interim measures imposed in respect of some of the applicants be lifted by the Court. However, it should be noted that the request was based on data that the applicants had declined the offers made to them for social services and alternative accommodation and on evidence that they had sufficient income from employment and welfare benefits and could not be deemed indigent.

The observations of the BHC focus next on a number of news reports about demolition of unlawful buildings in different cities. First, the Government submit that the Yordanova and Others group of cases does not prohibit the demolition of unlawful construction. Next, it should be noted that the news reports relied on by the BHC pointed out that not all demolished buildings were used for housing. A number of them were in fact stables and other farm and storage buildings. In addition, the reports specified that demolition had taken place after the affected persons were duly informed of the envisaged measures and the relevant orders had entered in force. The BHC fails to provide information on whether in the relevant cases the affected persons had made use of the remedies available to them at domestic levels. In the few reported instances where persons affected by the measures had turned to the local authorities with housing concerns appropriate steps were taken to offer them alternative accommodation. As regards the report concerning demolitions on Tamara Street in Burgas the BHC also fail to specify that the removed buildings were located on terrains designated for streets. Those buildings prevented the access of vehicles including ambulances, fire engines and police patrol

3. On the BHC’s comments regarding the Addendum to the Action Plan

The BHC criticise the recent developments in the case-law of the SAC because the criteria indicated therein do not address all possible concerns of the judgments in this group of case. The Government point out, however, that the list provided by the judgments of the national court is evidently non-exhaustive and thus takes account of the fact that a great variety of factors, some of which could not be foreseen, might prove relevant in the proportionality assessment under Article 8 of the Convention in the different individual cases.

As regards the BHC’s comments on the draft legislative change envisaged with regard to the execution of this group of judgments, the Government point out that it has indeed not yet been made public but the draft has been submitted to the Directorate of Human Rights. Before the draft is put up for public consultation and coordination with all public institutions it requires an ex-ante assessment of its impact and financial repercussions. To that end information is being gathered by the main stakeholders in the control of illegal construction and management of the state and municipal housing funds, including the National Association of Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria, the National Construction Control Directorate and the regional governors.

Next, the Government will address the BHC’s concern that the three judgments of SAC following judgment no. 11731 of 3 October 2018 do not quash the relevant administrative demolition orders. It is to be noted that while in those three case the SAC did not quash the demolition orders, it quashed the first instance judgments upholding the orders and remitted the cases for examination by the first instance. In all three judgments the SAC provided binding instructions to the lower courts to carry out a proportionality assessment of the interference with the appellants’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention and gave a non-exhaustive list of factors which should be taken into consideration for that assessment. The Government consider that this approach is in line with the standards set by the Court in Yordanova and Others and Ivanova and Cherkezov. In the first of the three case, the new judgment of the first instance court (Pazardzhik Administrative Court, case no. 534/2019) has been appealed and the case is

The Government contest the statement that after the judgment of 3 October 2018 the SAC delivered dozens of judgments in the opposite direction. The observations make no reference to such judgments. Both the judgment of the Burgas Administrative Court (no. № 2046 of 9 November 2018 in administrative case no. 1705/2018) and the judgment of the Varna Administrative Court (judgment of 30 October 2019 in case no. 1141/2019) relied on by the BHC are amenable to cassation review before the SAC. While there is no data that the Burgas judgment was appealed, the Varna case is currently pending before the SAC.

The Government would finally like to address the last paragraph in the BHC’s submissions as regards the last Addendum to the Action Plan. The two judgments nos. 1548 of 6 February 2019 in case no. 3424/2018 and 14122 of 22 October 2019 in case no. 11238/2018 of the SAC discussed in that paragraph (see footnote no. 9 of the observations) concern orders for terminations of municipal housing rent agreements due to the tenants’ failure to pay rents for long periods of time. The account the BHC of those judgment is misleading. The Government point out that after termination of such rent agreements separate evictions orders are to be issued under the relevant legislation and the proportionality of the eviction can be contested at that point. It is also evident from those judgments that in the event of efforts of the tenant to cover at least part of the outstanding rent, event where those efforts are made as late as at the stage of judicial review of the order, the domestic courts quash the agreement termination orders. Last, the domestic courts in those judgments discussed the appellants’ arguments regarding their personal and family circumstances and on both occasions found that there were no circumstances which could explain the absolute lack of any attempt on the part of the appellants to settle at least part of their debts.

As to judgment no. 14889 of 4 December 2018 the Government submit that at the early stages of the change of the case-law (barely two months after the judgment of 3 October 2018) some divergence is still acceptable. The BHC’ observations do not, however, point out to such divergent jurisprudence of the SAC in 2019.

Conclusions

The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria consider that the trend in the change of the case- law of the SAC appears stable and the judgments relied on in the addendum may not be deemed “isolated” cases. We reiterate that those developments appear to provide adequate guarantees for the right to respect for one’s private and family life and one’s home and can off-set the time requirements imposed by the legislative process. In view of the above considerations the Government consider that the BHC’s request for the adoption of an interim resolution on the Yordanova and others group of case does not appear justified.