THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TISHKINA v. BULGARIA
(Application no. 4711/20)
 
 
JUDGMENT
Art 1 P1 • Positive obligations • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Domestic authorities’ failure to take reasonable measures to protect the applicant’s house from irreparable structural damage caused by private individuals engaged in illegal coal mining • Assessment of the nature and extent of the damage completed after the applicant’s house suffered serious damage • Failure to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the illegal mining phenomenon • Inadequate efforts to manage the risks and prevent property damage particularly in the relevant district • Lack of clarity regarding the bodies whose responsibility it was to take action and as to possible countermeasures • Information regarding illegal mining fragmented • Domestic legal provisions inadequate • Failure to strike a fair balance between competing interests
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
3 March 2026
 
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tishkina v. Bulgaria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Darian Pavli,
 Diana Kovatcheva,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 4711/20) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Ms Elka Ivanova Atanasova (previously Tishkina, hereinafter “the applicant”), on 15 January 2020;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns, most notably, a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the Bulgarian State had failed to take adequate measures to protect the applicant’s property from the illegal actions of third parties. The applicant’s house is situated in an area containing shallow coal reserves, and private individuals have dug tunnels under it to extract coal for the black market, causing irreparable structural damage to the applicant’s house. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Pernik. She was represented by Ms R. Stoilova and Mr A. Kodzhabashev, lawyers practising in Sofia, and Ms J. MacLeod, a lawyer practising in London. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms B. Simeonova from the Ministry of Justice. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Coal mining and illegal mining in pernik
5. Pernik is a city in Western Bulgaria known for its mining industry. 6. An underground coal mine in the area in which the events of the present case occurred was opened in 1906. It operated until 1962, when it was closed owing to the depletion of its capacity for industrial mining. 7. Coal mining continued in other areas, and in 2003 the government granted a concession for underground coal extraction in the Pernik Coal Basin to the company Mini Otkrit Vagledobiv EAD (hereinafter “the mining company”). At the time of the granting of the concession, the mining company was State-owned, but it was later privatised. 8. According to the concession contract, the designated concession area spans approximately 14,000 hectares, encompassing the entire city of Pernik. Under section 10 of the contract, the mining company is required to conduct operations conscientiously, safely and efficiently. Section 27 provides that it must comply with environmental-protection legislation, and take measures to prevent landslides, land collapses and erosion. Additionally, the mining company is obliged to afford compensation for any damage that is the result of operations which it undertakes in violation of good mining practices. 9. Illegal small-scale underground mining by private individuals (“the illegal miners”) began between 1996 and 1998 in areas where the mining company was not operating. Typically led by former miners, groups of workers excavated pits and tunnels and collected coal, usually using basic tools such as pickaxes. The police regularly had the pits and tunnels filled up and launched awareness campaigns about the risks involved, but the mining continued. Over the years, several individuals lost their lives to land implosions or to intoxication by gas. According to a police report issued in 2015, illegal mining declined around 2008-10, but resurged after an earthquake of 22 May 2012, which opened cracks in the soil and exposed relatively shallow coal deposits. According to the same report, between 150 and 200 individuals were at that time engaged in illegal mining in the city. 10. In 2014, according to media reports from that year, about 400 individuals were engaged in illegal mining. Each day they extracted between 60 and 70 tonnes of coal. Extracted coal was sold on the local black market quickly, owing to its low price and good quality. However, the illegal mining endangered houses, and there are also reports of it threatening infrastructure such as a railway line and an electricity pylon. On many occasions inhabitants of the city protested against the authorities’ failure to tackle the problem. 11. The parties submitted police statistics indicating that 52 checks of sites where illegal mining was taking place were carried out by police officers and municipal officials in 2013, and 83 in 2014. That information contained few details, but it indicated that offenders caught by these checks were taken into short-term police custody. 12. More recent media reports – some published as late as 2024 – also refer to the arrests of persons engaged in illegal mining and to the discovery of caches of illegally extracted coal. For example, several individuals were arrested in 2019 in the neighbourhood of the applicant’s house (see below). 13. The parties submitted documents concerning the initiation of criminal proceedings for theft against individuals caught transporting illegally mined coal. Those proceedings preceded the criminalisation of illegal mining – see paragraph 48 below. However, those cases were discontinued owing to the low value of the coal in question, which rendered them legally insignificant. 14. The mining company also took measures to counter the illegal mining, occasionally seeking the assistance of the municipal authorities and the police.
damage caused to the applicant’s house
15. In 1995, the applicant’s mother purchased a house measuring 52 square metres in the Rudnichar district of Pernik, which she and the applicant then moved into. 16. In 2010, the two women began noticing groups of individuals entering underground tunnels in order to extract coal. It was later confirmed that those tunnels passed directly beneath their house, which was situated on a hill. The entrances were located on a plot that was owned by the mining company and which was adjacent to the plot owned by the applicant’s mother. The applicant and her mother frequently heard voices and the sounds of pickaxes striking the ground; those sounds were sometimes accompanied by vibrations. Those activities took place mostly at night. 17. The applicant’s mother repeatedly lodged complaints with the Pernik municipal authorities, urging them to take action against the illegal mining. For example, in a complaint dated 17 November 2011 she described the distress and fear that she was experiencing, and referred to cracks that were appearing on the walls of her house. In another letter dated 21 February 2012, she explained that, although the tunnel entrances had been filled in (see below), the miners had reopened them and had continued their operations. On 7 March 2012 she reported hearing pickaxes directly beneath the house, and stated that the miners had threatened her. Later, on 26 June 2013, she noticed that part of the street in front of the house had subsided. 18. The applicant’s mother also lodged complaints with the mining company. Three such documents – dated 21 March and 13 September 2012 and 7 March 2013 – have been submitted to the Court. Additionally, she wrote to the police, to the national Ombudsman and to Parliament. 19. The applicant’s mother received 3,114 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of 1,590 euros (EUR) of governmental aid to cover minor repairs made to her house after the earthquake of 22 May 2012 (see paragraph 9 above). 20. The applicant’s mother died in August 2013, and the applicant inherited the house. 21. The applicant vacated the house in the summer of 2013 – considering it no longer safe to live in – and moved into a flat elsewhere. She stated that until that time, she had actively maintained the house, making repairs in order to address the ongoing structural damage. 22. The following damage to the house occurred over the years: cracks formed on the walls and on bathroom tiles, reaching widths measuring between 5-6 cm and 12 cm; window frames became deformed, leading to leaks and draughts; cracks and holes also appeared on the land outside, and part of the house’s floor sank. In April or May 2018, when the property was inspected by an expert appointed in the course of the tort proceedings initiated by the applicant (see below), the house was found to be severely damaged and tilted to one side; by that stage, the expert asserted, it was irreparable and uninhabitable. 23. As illegal mining continued, on 8 May 2014 a group of residents of the Rudnichar district complained to the city mayor, urging immediate action. 24. On 1 July 2015, a massive landslide occurred in the area, damaging several buildings, including the applicant’s house. Further smaller landslides followed in November 2015 and January 2016. Actions of the authorities with regard to the illegal mining in rudnichar
25. As early as 2009, the authorities in Pernik were seeking to implement measures aimed at combating illegal mining in Rudnichar. 26. In February 2012 the mayor of Pernik appointed a five-member commission to check the situation in the neighbourhood. Over the following months the municipality held meetings with representatives of the mining company and the Ministry of Economics to discuss the problem. 27. Beginning in early 2012, the Pernik municipal authorities sent multiple letters to the Ministry of Economics, the prosecution authorities and the police, requesting them to take action against the illegal mining in Rudnichar. 28. The Ministry of Economics responded with letters confirming that its experts had verified the damage caused in Rudnichar. It urged the municipality to take action and offered assistance. In particular, in a letter of 12 November 2014, the Ministry referred to various provisions of the Underground Resources Act (including section 90(5) – see paragraph 45 below), stating that those provisions assigned to the mayor responsibility for monitoring and controlling illegal mining. Additionally, the Ministry sent urgent recommendations to the mining company, noting that the affected area was covered by the mining concession. 29. The local police directorate also sent letters urging the municipality to take action, noting that police officers had visited the area and had confirmed that illegal mining was still ongoing. 30. The municipality contacted the mining company numerous times, asking it to take urgent measures to secure the affected area. Several such letters were sent in 2014 and 2015, emphasising the need for urgent action. The municipality also pointed out that the illegal miners were using an abandoned bunker that was owned by the mining company. 31. In April and December 2012 the mining company attempted to block access to the tunnels used by the miners, by covering up their entrances with soil. After the tunnels were quickly reopened, the entrances were again filled in with soil in June, August and October 2014, as well as on three further occasions in 2015. In letters to the authorities the mining company explained that it was unable to take more comprehensive action owing to the nearby presence of residential buildings and underground water and electricity infrastructure. In a letter to the Ministry of Economics dated 13 February 2014, the mining company requested governmental assistance, stating that the scale of the problem was beyond its capacity to handle alone. 32. Between February 2015 and August 2017 the Pernik mayor imposed fines on individuals caught engaging in illegal mining, citing the Ordinance on Public Order on the Territory of the Pernik Municipality (see paragraph 47 below). The fines ranged between BGN 50 (EUR 25.5) and BGN 70 (EUR 36). It remains unclear whether the offenders actually paid those fines. 33. As previously noted (see paragraph 24 above), a landslide occurred on 1 July 2015 in the area where the applicant’s house was located, followed by two smaller landslides in the subsequent months. 34. On 1 July 2015, the mayor of Pernik declared an emergency situation in the Rudnichar district. An initial damage assessment confirmed a lengthy crack on the street on which the applicant’s house stood. Three houses were damaged, one of which was the applicant’s. It was decided that the houses were no longer habitable at and should be evacuated. 35. After the landslide of 1 July 2015, a permanent police post was established in the Rudnichar district; staffed around-the-clock by two to three officers, it enabled the continuous monitoring of the tunnel entrances. 36. A comprehensive geological assessment was conducted in the area, with the results being presented in a report dated December 2015 (the document’s first page indicates that it was part of a project of the mining company and a geological research company to envisage means to address the consequences of industrial mining’s cessation on the territory of Pernik). The experts identified at least two parallel mining galleries, measuring between 120 and 150 metres in length and up to 1.8 metres in width, with possible connecting galleries. The tunnels – located between 5 and 15 metres underground – had significantly altered the natural structure and stability of the terrain. Deformations had for the first time been observed in 2013, and further deterioration was likely to occur owing to the compacting of the soil. The report confirmed that the illegal mining was responsible for the damage to the houses and infrastructure on the surface. It recommended filling in the tunnels, sealing them, and destroying the bunkers used to access them. It outlined different technical solutions aimed at achieving that end. 37. Such works were ultimately carried out after government funds were received, leading to the lifting of the local state of emergency in December 2017. 38. According to an expert appointed later in the course of the judicial proceedings brought by the applicant (see below), no technical obstacles had prevented those works from being conducted at an earlier stage. 39. Illegal mining in the area of the applicant’s house was observed in 2017 and 2018. According to the applicant, the mining activities were resumed after the round-the-clock police presence (see paragraph 35 above) was discontinued in December 2017. Tort proceedings brought by the applicant
40. In 2017 the applicant brought tort proceedings against the municipality of Pernik. She argued that the municipality had failed to take the necessary action to protect her property between 2011 and 2015, despite it having been aware of the problem with illegal mining in Rudnichar. According to the applicant, the mayor had been obliged to take action – in particular under section 90(5) of the Underground Resources Act (see paragraph 45 below). The mayor had had the possibility to deploy various measures; she had done so after the landslide of 1 July 2015, but by then it had been too late. The municipality was thus liable for the damage caused to the applicant’s house. The applicant claimed BGN 80,000 (EUR 40,920) for the value of the house, BGN 7,250 (EUR 3,700) in compensation for loss of profit, and BGN 10,000 (EUR 5,112) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 41. In a judgment of 22 October 2018 the Pernik Administrative Court dismissed the claims. It accepted, on the basis of an expert report, that the damage to the applicant’s house had been caused by deformations of the terrain caused by the illegal mining below ground. According to the expert, the damage had not been the result of earthquakes or other natural disasters. However, the domestic court was of the view that the mayor would have been obliged to take action under section 90(5) of the Underground Resources Act only if the area had not been part of a mining concession. This had not been the case, as a concession had been granted to the mining company, whose responsibility it had been to put a stop to the illegal mining. Furthermore, the mayor had in any event taken adequate measures that had fallen within her area of competence – such as asking other authorities and the mining company to take action, and imposing fines (see paragraphs 27 and 32 above). Any obligation under section 90(5) of the Underground Resources Act was one of means, and not of result. 42. Following an appeal lodged by the applicant, the above judgment was upheld on 16 July 2019 by the Supreme Administrative Court, which fully endorsed the lower court’s conclusions. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The Underground resources Act
43. The Underground Resources Act, adopted in 1999, governs the extraction and use of underground resources. 44. Section 90 assigns to various State and local bodies the responsibility of overseeing the Act’s implementation. Overall authority in that regard rests with the Minister of Economics. 45. At the relevant time the duties of the mayor of each municipality were outlined in section 90(5) of the Act. In particular, the mayor was responsible for exercising control over the activities of concessionaires outside the territory of their respective concessions, and over “the extraction of underground resources without a duly granted concession”. 46. Under section 91 of the Act, the bodies assigned responsibilities under section 90 have the authority to conduct checks of the activities and equipment of mining companies and impose fines. Other provisions
47. The Ordinance on Public Order on the Territory of the Municipality of Pernik was issued in 2000 by the city’s municipal council. Its section 23 prohibits mining without a concession, while section 32 provides for fines to be imposed for breaches of that prohibition. Where the value of the resources extracted is low (below the minimum monthly wage), the fines provided range between BGN 50 (EUR 25.5) and BGN 300 (EUR 153). 48. In 2017 the illegal extraction of underground resources was criminalised under Article 240a of the Criminal Code. 49. Article 239 § 6 of the Code of Administrative Procedure provides that an interested party may request the reopening of administrative judicial proceedings in a case where a “judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of the [Convention]”. The Supreme Administrative Court has clarified that it would order reopening where the violation established by the Court was “related to the specific judicial proceedings” and where the reopening is “necessary in order to repair the consequences of the violation” (Решение № 4014 от 3.04.2024 г. на ВАС по адм. д. № 12135/2023 г.; Решение № 4936 от 13.05.2025 г. на ВАС по адм. д. № 419/2025 г., IV о.). THE LAW
Alleged violation of Article 1 of protocol no. 1
50. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of a violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. She argued that the authorities had had an obligation to stop the illegal mining that had caused the damage to her house, but had failed. She had received no compensation for the damage at issue. 51. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
AdmissibilityThe parties’ submissions

52. The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, contending that the applicant should have pursued tort proceedings against the mining company or the State, rather than against the municipality of Pernik. They referred to the domestic courts’ findings in the proceedings initiated by the applicant (see paragraph 41 above). They further pointed out that it had not been the applicant but her mother who had complained to the authorities after the illegal mining under their house had begun. 53. The Government argued additionally that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was time-barred. According to them, the six-month time limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention – as worded before the entry into force of Protocol No. 15 – had begun in 2015, when the applicant’s house had been damaged beyond repair. 54. The applicant contested the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. She argued that the tort action that she had pursued had been the only remedy available under Bulgarian law. She could not have brought an action against the mining company, because the company had not been conducting mining operations in Rudnichar. It had acted to cover up the entrances to the tunnels as it owned the land providing access to them; however, it bore no responsibility for the safety or property of the residents of Rudnichar. 55. The applicant pointed out that her mother had approached every possible State body in her search for a solution to the problem of the deterioration of their house. Although it had been her mother who had penned the letters, she had clearly done so on behalf of the applicant as well. 56. In response to the Government’s argument that the complaint under examination was time-barred, the applicant stated that she still considered the house to be her home. She had lodged a claim against the municipality, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage (namely, the violation of her right to respect for her home). The violation of her rights was ongoing.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation