issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 293 (2018)
06.09.2018
Judgments and decisions of 6 September 2018
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 12 judgments1 and 41 decisions2:
five Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for two
other Chamber judgments in the cases of Dadayan v. Armenia (application no. 14078/12) and
Kontalexis v. Greece (no. 2) (no. 29321/13);
five Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Dimitar Yordanov v. Bulgaria (application no. 3401/09)
The applicant, Dimitar Pavlov Yordanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1939 and lives in
Sofia. The case concerned his complaint about damage to his property caused by a nearby coalmine.
Mr Yordanov owned a plot of land in the village of Golyamo Buchino. At the end of the 1980s or the
beginning of the 1990s, the State decided to create an opencast coalmine near to the village. A
number of properties, including Mr Yordanov’s, were expropriated. He waited for two years without
receiving another plot of land in compensation, promised to him in the expropriation procedure. He
therefore cancelled the procedure with the local authorities. He remained in the house, while the
mine started operating and gradually expanded.
At its closest, the mine operated within 160-180 metres from his house, with coal being extracted by
blasting. Cracks appeared on the walls of the house and his barn and animal pen collapsed. He
eventually moved out of his house in 1997, judging it too dangerous to stay. The house has since
fallen down and the property remains abandoned.
In 2001 Mr Yordanov brought a tort action against the mining company, seeking compensation for
the damage caused to his property. The courts heard witnesses, Mr Yordanov’s neighbours, and
commissioned expert reports, establishing that serious damage had been caused to his property and
that detonations in the nearby mine had been carried out inside the 500 metre buffer area, in
breach of domestic law. However, the courts concluded in 2007 that there was no proof of a link
between the mining activities and the damage, which could also have been caused by normal wear
and tear or shortcomings in the house’s construction.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human
Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Mr Yordanov
alleged that the courts had wrongly dismissed his tort claim and that the State had failed to protect
his property from unlawful mining activities.
No violation of Article 6 § 1
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
