5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Sofia.
6.  In 1993 the applicant, acting as a sole trader, concluded a contract with a municipally-owned company under which she undertook to set up a shop in the city shopping centre. This contract was extended numerous times.
7.  On 1 July 1996 the applicant asked the Kardzhali Municipal Council (“the municipal council”) to sell to her the first floor of the shopping centre under the preferential privatisation procedure for tenants of State- and municipally-owned property as provided for in section 35 (1) of the Transformation and Privatisation of State and Municipally-Owned Enterprises Act (Закон за преобразуване и приватизация на държавни и общински предприятия) (“the Privatisation Act”). In February 1997 the applicant was informed that the municipal council had refused her request on 29 January 1997.
8.  The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the refusal to sell the property to her. On 20 February 2004 the Kardzhali Regional Court quashed the council’s refusal and instructed it to open a privatisation procedure under which it would offer the applicant the option to buy the first floor of the shopping centre under preferential conditions, in accordance with the Privatisation Act. The court ordered several expert reports and determined on the basis of them that the first floor in question constituted a separate property unit, in both technical and legal terms, which could be the subject of a transaction. That finding was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court in a final decision of 18 February 2005.
9.  In the meantime, on 8 May 2001 the mayor of Kardzhali sent a notice to the applicant announcing the termination of the contract concluded in 1993 (see paragraph 6 above). On 4 June 2001 the mayor ordered the applicant’s eviction from the shop. Following an appeal by the applicant, the Burgas District Court suspended the enforcement of the order. This ruling was confirmed by the Burgas Regional Court.
10.  On 24 September 2001 the mayor issued another order for the applicant’s eviction. Before it entered into force, representatives of the municipal council broke into the shop and took possession of it. The applicant complained to the district prosecutor of Kardzhali (“the district prosecutor”) about the mayor’s allegedly arbitrary action. On 9 November 2001 the district prosecutor refused to intervene or to open criminal proceedings. Subsequently the regional and appellate prosecutors upheld that refusal.
11.  On 11 April 2005 the applicant requested the municipal council to open a privatisation procedure so that she could buy the first floor of the shopping centre, in accordance with the final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 18 February 2005 (see paragraph 8 above). The municipal council did not reply to her request, so the applicant complained to the district prosecutor about that failure to respond and asked him to open criminal proceedings. On 3 July 2006 the district prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings, observing in particular that, given that the decision had been taken by a collective body, no individual criminal responsibility could be attached to any of its members.
12.  On 20 April 2006 the municipal council decided to open a privatisation procedure in favour of the applicant in respect of part of the first floor of the shopping centre. In the same decision the council also prohibited any and all transactions aimed at disposing of the property.
13.  On 16 June 2006 the mayor ordered that two expert reports be drawn up, in accordance with the relevant procedure: one in respect of the legal status of the property and another one in respect of its value. During the proceedings the relevant authorities considered that the shopping centre had not been divided into separate property units and that such a division would have to be carried out before some of those could be sold to the applicant.
14.  On 24 July 2008 the municipal council authorised the mayor to open a privatisation procedure in favour of the applicant in respect of part of the shopping centre’s first floor. On 20 August 2008 the applicant brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the tacit refusal of the municipality to offer to her the whole first floor of the shopping centre and not just a part of it. While those proceedings were pending, on 29 September 2008 the municipal council and the applicant, acting as a sole trader, signed a contract under which the applicant purchased the part of the first floor of the shopping centre offered by the council. The applicant’s challenge to the municipality’s tacit refusal was dismissed as inadmissible by the Kardzhali Administrative Court on 7 October 2009. The court found that the municipality’s failure to sell to her the entirety of the property, as decided in the final judgment of 18 February 2005 in the applicant’s favour (see paragraph 8 above), did not constitute a new refusal to initiate a privatisation procedure; rather, it represented a failure on the part of the authorities in question to comply with the said final judgment ordering the start of that privatisation procedure. This ruling was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 22 January 2010.
15.  In the meantime, the applicant lodged a claim for damages against the municipal council under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 (“the SMRDA”). She sought damages in respect of the municipal council’s failure to open a privatisation procedure by means of offering to sell to her the whole first floor of the shopping centre. Her claim concerned the period between the date of the final judgment of 18 February 2005 and the date of her lodging the claim for damages – 18 December 2007.
16.  The Sofia Administrative Court rejected her claim on 10 November 2008. The court found in particular that the applicant had not proved her claim in respect of the pecuniary damages she had sought, given that there had been no certainty that, had the municipality made an offer, she would have actually paid the price for the property and thus completed the deal. As regards her claim for non-pecuniary damages, the court found that the applicant’s great emotional suffering was established during the trial. However, the suffering was more intense during the several months immediately following the municipal council’s initial refusal to sell the premises to the applicant. The court further noted during a hearing on 21 April 2008 that the applicant had interrupted her activities as a sole trader at the time, having moved to another city with her family. Given that it had not been demonstrated that the applicant had felt resentment and tension specifically as a result of the failure to enforce the judgment in her favour, no award for non-pecuniary damage was due to her.
17.  The applicant appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court which upheld the lower court’s findings in a final decision of 31 May 2010.
18.  The applicant continued to pursue the purchase, under the preferential privatisation procedure, of the remaining part of the shopping centre’s first floor. That part was identified as consisting of two separate units, which she claimed were due to her on the basis of the final judgment of 18 February 2005. In response to a request made by the applicant on 21 June 2013 to be offered to buy the remaining part of the shopping centre’s first floor, the municipal council decided in December 2013, on the advice of the municipal council’s counsel, as well as on the basis of various expert reports, to offer her the option to buy the remaining part of the shopping centre’s first floor.
19.  On 18 August 2014 the municipal council sold to the applicant the outstanding part of the first floor of the shopping centre.
20.  On 12 September 2014, the applicant leased one of her recently acquired property units to a third party, a company. The terms of the lease were for the period of twenty years and for the price of 50,000 euros (EUR).