Aleksieva and others v. Bulgaria: demolition of a Roma settlement and the right to respect for the home under Article 8 ECHR

Introduction

On 25 August 2026, the Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Aleksieva and Others v. Bulgaria (Application no. 30915/23; ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0825JUD003091523). The case concerns the demolition of a Roma settlement in which the applicants lived, and raises fundamental questions about the right to respect for the home as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judgment addresses a series of serious procedural failures by the Bulgarian authorities, including the deliberate exclusion of the applicants from the formal demolition process, the concealment of the intention to proceed with demolition, and the absence of any mechanism enabling the applicants to obtain a proportionality review before their homes were destroyed. The Court also issued guidance under Article 46 of the Convention concerning the general measures Bulgaria must take to remedy the identified structural deficiencies.

This article examines the key findings of the judgment, the factual background as set out in the Court's decision, the relevant legal framework applied, and the implications of the Court's ruling for the protection of housing rights in the Council of Europe system. It does not constitute legal advice, and readers with specific legal concerns should consult a qualified professional.

Background and factual context

The applicants were residents of a Roma settlement in Bulgaria. According to the judgment, they had no formal legal entitlement to inhabit the buildings in which they lived, a circumstance that proved central to the procedural difficulties they subsequently encountered when the municipal authorities moved to demolish their homes.

The Court's account of the facts describes a situation in which the municipality took both practical and formal steps with a view to demolishing the applicants' homes. Critically, the judgment records that the intention to proceed with the demolition was concealed from the applicants and from other authorities. This concealment was not incidental but formed part of what the Court characterised as a process structured in a manner calculated to avoid legal procedural safeguards.

The applicants made extensive efforts to obtain information about the demolition process. The judgment records that they submitted requests for access to information, engaged in correspondence with the municipal authorities, made visits to the municipality, lodged complaints with various authorities, and corresponded with the social assistance authorities. Despite these efforts, they were effectively excluded from the formal process in which the demolition orders were made and enforced.

The factual section of the judgment also records multiple series of injunction applications brought by the applicants before the Sofia City Administrative Court and, on appeal, before the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicants additionally sought judicial review of the demolition orders themselves. The proceedings were marked by significant obstacles, including the courts' difficulties in obtaining copies of the demolition orders being challenged, directions issued to the applicants by the Sofia City Administrative Court, and declarations that several of the judicial review claims were inadmissible.

The judgment notes that certain of the applicants' homes were in fact demolished during the course of these proceedings. As of January 2025, the applicants' housing situation remained precarious. The Court also records that the applicants complained to the prosecuting authorities and that interim measures were indicated under Rule 39 § 1 of the Rules of Court, with those measures subsequently being partly lifted and partly maintained.

Victim status and the scope of the Court's examination

One notable aspect of the judgment concerns the question of victim status. The Court found that two applicants whose house was subject to a demolition order but remained standing at the time of the proceedings nonetheless retained victim status for the purposes of the Convention. This finding is significant because it confirms that the existence of a demolition order, even where not yet enforced, can be sufficient to engage an individual's status as a victim of a potential violation of Article 8.

This approach reflects the Court's recognition that the threat of losing one's home is itself capable of interfering with the right to respect for the home, and that applicants should not be required to wait until the moment of actual demolition before being able to claim the protection of the Convention.

Article 8 of the Convention: the right to respect for the home

The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, which protects the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. The violation was established on the basis of several distinct but interrelated failures.

First, the judgment identifies the deliberate exclusion of the applicants from the formal process in which the demolition orders were made and enforced. The Court characterised this exclusion as deliberate and noted that the process appeared to be structured in a manner calculated to avoid legal procedural safeguards. This is a particularly serious finding, as it suggests not merely administrative error but a purposive design to circumvent the protections that the law would otherwise have afforded to the applicants.

Second, the Court found that the intention to proceed with the demolition was concealed from the applicants and from other authorities. This concealment compounded the procedural exclusion by depriving the applicants of the opportunity to take timely steps to protect their interests.

Third, and fundamentally, the Court found that there was no procedure enabling the applicants to obtain, in advance of the demolition, a proper review of the proportionality of the measure in light of their individual circumstances. The absence of such a procedure meant that the interference with the applicants' right to respect for their home was not accompanied by the safeguards that Article 8 requires.

Fourth, the judgment records that the authorities failed to consider that the applicants were members of a socially disadvantaged group and a community with a long history in the settlement. This failure to take account of the applicants' particular vulnerability and their established connection to the settlement is presented as a further element of the disproportionate character of the interference with their rights.

Relevant legal framework: Bulgarian law and practice

The judgment sets out in considerable detail the relevant Bulgarian legal framework and practice. This includes the provisions of the Territorial Organisation Act 2001 and the regulations made under it, as applied by the courts. The Act establishes a general requirement for buildings to be lawfully erected, provides for retrospective regularisation in certain circumstances, and sets out the procedure for making and enforcing orders for the demolition of unlawful buildings.

Under the framework described in the judgment, the authority competent to make a demolition order is identified, and the procedure for doing so is outlined. The judgment notes that demolition orders are not immediately enforceable, and that there are provisions governing the notification of decisions and documents to interested parties.

The judgment also addresses the mechanisms for judicial review of demolition orders and their enforcement, as well as other relevant provisions of the 2006 Code, including the principle of the proportionality of administrative action, the participation of affected persons in the making of an administrative decision, and the availability of prohibitive and mandatory injunctions against the authorities.

Further, the judgment refers to the relevant provisions of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988, including liability for damage caused by unlawful decisions, acts or omissions by State or municipal authorities, and liability for damage caused by a breach of European Union law. The Protection from Discrimination Act 2003, including its prohibition of discrimination and the remedies available for infringements, is also identified as part of the relevant legal framework.

The detailed exposition of this framework serves to contextualise the Court's findings. Despite the existence of these legal provisions, the applicants were in practice unable to access the procedural protections they were intended to provide, a gap that lies at the heart of the Court's finding of a violation.

Article 46 of the Convention: general measures required of Bulgaria

In addition to finding a violation of Article 8, the Court addressed the execution of the judgment under Article 46 of the Convention. The Court indicated that Bulgaria must take steps to ensure that persons with no formal entitlement to inhabit buildings in which they lived, and who risked losing their home due to an intended demolition even if they were not the addressees of the demolition order, had effective access to a procedure to review the proportionality of the measure in light of their individual circumstances.

This indication of general measures reflects the Court's assessment that the violation identified in the case is not merely the result of an isolated administrative failure but points to a structural deficiency in the Bulgarian legal system. By requiring Bulgaria to address this deficiency at a systemic level, the Court is seeking to ensure that future residents in comparable situations are afforded the procedural protections that Article 8 demands.

The emphasis on effective access to a proportionality review is particularly significant. The Court's guidance makes clear that it is not sufficient for such a procedure to exist in formal terms; it must be genuinely accessible to those who need it, including persons who are not the formal addressees of a demolition order but who will nonetheless be directly affected by its enforcement.

Significance of the judgment for housing rights and Roma communities

The judgment in Aleksieva and Others v. Bulgaria is of considerable significance for the protection of housing rights within the Council of Europe system, and in particular for the rights of Roma communities living in informal settlements.

The Court's finding that the process was structured in a manner calculated to avoid legal procedural safeguards, and that the intention to demolish was concealed from the applicants and other authorities, represents a strong condemnation of the conduct of the Bulgarian municipal authorities. The judgment makes clear that Article 8 imposes positive obligations on states to ensure that persons facing the loss of their home have a genuine opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and to obtain a meaningful proportionality review.

The Court's explicit recognition that the applicants were members of a socially disadvantaged group and a community with a long history in the settlement underscores the relevance of vulnerability and historical connection to place in the proportionality assessment required by Article 8. Authorities contemplating the demolition of informal settlements must take these factors into account.

The Article 46 guidance reinforces the systemic dimension of the judgment. Bulgaria is required not merely to remedy the situation of the individual applicants but to reform its legal framework so that effective procedural protection is available to all persons in comparable circumstances, regardless of whether they hold formal legal title to their homes or are the named addressees of a demolition order.

Conclusion

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Aleksieva and Others v. Bulgaria (Application no. 30915/23) represents a significant development in the Court's jurisprudence on the right to respect for the home under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court found that the demolition of the applicants' homes in a Roma settlement, carried out without ensuring their participation in the process, without disclosing the intention to demolish, and without any mechanism for a proportionality review in light of their individual circumstances, constituted a violation of Article 8.

The judgment is notable for its findings on victim status, its detailed engagement with the Bulgarian legal framework, its characterisation of the municipal process as deliberately structured to avoid procedural safeguards, and its Article 46 guidance requiring Bulgaria to introduce systemic reforms to ensure effective access to proportionality review for all persons at risk of losing their homes through demolition, irrespective of their formal legal status.

For states across the Council of Europe, the judgment serves as a reminder that the procedural requirements of Article 8 are not merely formal obligations. They must be given practical effect, particularly in cases involving socially disadvantaged groups whose vulnerability and established connection to their homes demand careful and individualised consideration before any demolition is carried out.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Sources consulted

• CASE OF ALEKSIEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe