4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Sofia.
5.  The applicant was one of the co-owners of a house with a yard in the town of Troyan.
6.  By a decision of the mayor of 15 March 1983 the property was expropriated with a view to constructing residential and administrative buildings. The decision, based on section 98 (1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство – “the TUPA”), provided that the applicant was to be compensated with a three-room flat in a building which the municipality intended to construct.
7.  By a supplementary order of 27 March 1990, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor determined the exact location, size and other details in respect of the future flat to be offered to the applicant.
8.  The applicant and the other owners continued occupying the expropriated house. Even though the applicant lived in Sofia, she apparently continued to keep in it possessions of hers.
9.  The building where the applicant’s flat was initially to be located was finished in 2003, but it was smaller than originally planned and no flat in it could be offered to the applicant. The reason for the change of plans, which had been decided upon in 1995, was the restitution of part of the land earmarked for the construction to its previous owners, under restitution legislation adopted in 1992.
10.  In April 2001 the municipality issued a building permit for a new building with flats, to be situated on the plot of land where the applicant’s expropriated house was still standing. The permit was renewed in 2004, 2007 and 2010. In the meantime, construction plans were approved, and towards the end of 2003 the municipality allocated the flats to their future owners. On the basis of that distribution, on 13 January 2004 the mayor issued a new decision under section 100 of the TUPA in respect of the applicant, revoking the previous decision of 27 March 1990 (see paragraph 7 above) and indicating the exact flat in the new building to be provided to her in compensation. The newly allocated flat measured 94 square metres, slightly bigger in size than the one offered in 1990.
11.  Nevertheless, dissatisfied with the decision of 13 January 2004, the applicant challenged it before the courts, claiming that it impermissibly modified the 1990 decision dealing with the same matter. The proceedings continued until 20 November 2007 when, in a final judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review.
12.  In the meantime, in 2005 the applicant made a request to the mayor, seeking the revocation of the 1983 expropriation order in respect of her share of the property. As no response followed, she applied for the judicial review of the mayor’s tacit refusal. The ensuing proceedings were initially stayed to await the outcome of those described in the previous paragraph. Once they were resumed, in a final judgment of 24 July 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the preconditions for restitution had not been met.
13.  On 13 and 28 August 2009 the mayor ordered the applicant’s eviction from the expropriated house and that the house be pulled down. The applicant applied for the judicial review of both orders. The first one was upheld by the courts in a final judgment of 14 February 2011, and the second one on 20 April 2010. Meanwhile, in September 2009 the applicant was evicted.
14.  The house was pulled down on an unspecified date, after which the municipality selected a company to carry out the construction works on the site, which started in April 2011. In the meantime, the applicant contested before the courts the 2001 building permit (see paragraph 10 above) concerning the building to be constructed, but was unsuccessful.
15.  The building was finished in 2014 and in July 2014 the applicant was invited to receive the keys to her flat. She refused to do so and instead of that challenged before the courts the authorization for the building to be used, claiming in particular that the construction had not been of sufficient quality. The course of these proceedings is unclear.