This judgment, *Aleksieva and Others v. Bulgaria* (application no. 30915\/23), concerns the demolition of a Roma settlement in Sofia in August 2023, which resulted in the displacement of 56 applicants. The Court found that the municipal authorities deliberately excluded the residents from the administrative process, concealing their intentions and failing to provide information despite numerous inquiries. The applicants were effectively denied the opportunity to participate in the proceedings or to challenge the demolition orders in a meaningful way. The Court emphasized that the authorities failed to conduct any assessment of the proportionality of the demolition, particularly regarding the vulnerability of the applicants as a socially disadvantaged group. Consequently, the Court ruled that there was a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. It also issued specific directions under Article 46, requiring Bulgaria to ensure that individuals in similar situations have effective access to a procedure to review the proportionality of such measures.<\/p>\n
### Structure and Provisions
\nThe decision is structured into several key sections:
\n* **The Facts:** Details the municipality\u2019s “covert” approach, including the use of anonymous notices and the refusal to provide information to residents.
\n* **Admissibility:** The Court dismissed the Government\u2019s objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, noting that the applicants had made reasonable efforts to use available legal channels, which were rendered ineffective by the authorities’ actions.
\n* **Merits:** The Court focused on the lack of procedural safeguards and the failure to assess the proportionality of the interference with the applicants’ “home.”
\n* **Article 46 (Execution):** This is a significant addition compared to previous cases. The Court explicitly mandates that the State must ensure that even persons without formal property titles have access to a judicial procedure to review the proportionality of demolition orders before they are enforced.<\/p>\n
### Important Provisions for Legal Use
\nFor legal practitioners, the following aspects of the judgment are particularly significant:
\n1. **Procedural Standing:** The Court clarified that the lack of formal property title does not strip individuals of their right to a proportionality assessment under Article 8 when their “home” is at stake.
\n2. **Effective Remedy:** The judgment establishes that domestic remedies are not “exhausted” if the procedural hurdles created by the authorities (such as the inability to identify specific demolition orders) make it impossible for the applicant to obtain a decision on the merits.
\n3. **Systemic Failure:** By invoking Article 46, the Court signals that the Bulgarian administrative practice of denying standing to occupants who are not the formal addressees of demolition orders is incompatible with the Convention.
\n4. **Victim Status:** The Court confirmed that an order for demolition constitutes an interference with the right to respect for one’s home, regardless of whether the physical demolition has already occurred or whether the house remained standing due to interim measures.<\/p>\n
**:** This decision is highly relevant for the Ukrainian legal context, particularly regarding the protection of housing rights during administrative enforcement and the rights of vulnerable groups. The Court\u2019s emphasis on the necessity of a proportionality assessment before the demolition of an only home\u2014even in cases of informal construction\u2014provides a strong precedent for protecting the rights of internally displaced persons or other vulnerable populations in Ukraine who may face similar administrative challenges regarding their housing.<\/p>\n