CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s37839E0D { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCBC20640 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sAB51C47C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.94pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.26pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5CCD731E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s227984AF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-22.7pt; text-align:justify } .s636BD389 { width:12.04pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCF2C3F61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s12B939F1 { width:9.38pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E304268 { width:190.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA1463580 { width:121.66%; border-collapse:collapse } .s96913B96 { width:7.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sD3A42AA0 { width:47.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5AE2D91 { width:15.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA13EBEE1 { width:13.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4875EBFF { width:7.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4FF7E859 { width:47.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8231963 { width:15.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFA694C35 { width:13.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }       FIFTH SECTION   CASE OF ZIKATANOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Application no. 45806/11)     JUDGMENT     Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • No “legitimate expectation” to restitution in kind • Lengthy unjustified delays in restitution proceedings in respect of agricultural land • Prolonged uncertainty as to exact scope of entitlement to restitution   STRASBOURG 12 December 2019     FINAL   12/03/2020   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Zikatanova and Others v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Yonko Grozev,   Síofra O’Leary,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Lәtif Hüseynov,   Lado Chanturia, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 45806/11) 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 hundred and forty-seven Bulgarian nationals (“the applicants”) on 15 July 2011. Some of the applicants passed away after the lodging of the application and their heirs expressed a wish to continue the proceedings in their stead. A list of the applicants, indicating also the heirs of those of them who have passed away, is set out in the appendix. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms   G.   Chernicherska, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms   I.   Stancheva-Chinova and Ms I. Nedyalkova, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicants, who had initiated restitution-of-property proceedings, complained, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, about the impossibility of obtaining restitution in kind and about the prolonged uncertainty in resolving their restitution claims. 4.     On 5 July 2018 the Government were given notice of the application, in so far as the applicants enumerated in the appendix were concerned, while the complaints of other initial applicants were declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE Facts common to all applicants 5.     Ancestors of the applicants owned plots of agricultural land in the outskirts of Sofia, in an area called Vrazhdebna. In the 1950s the land was incorporated into an agricultural cooperative. 6.     In 1960 the State expropriated part of the land used by the cooperative. The plot, measuring about 350,000 square metres, was registered as State property in 1970. On that land the Ministry of Education created, and subsequently managed, an experimental field for students and trainee agrobiologists. In the 1960s and 1970s buildings, roads, irrigation installations and other infrastructure were constructed on the land. 7.     In 1998 the Minister of Education granted the use of the field to the Forestry University in Sofia. 8.     In the meantime, in 1991 Parliament enacted the Agricultural Land Act (hereinafter “the 1991 Act”, see paragraph 46 below). On different dates after that the applicants applied for the restitution of their ancestors’ land. The individual restitution procedures, most of which have not yet ended, are described in more detail in paragraphs 17-45 below. 9.     In 1999 the Ministry of Agriculture proposed that about 63,000 square metres of the territory of the experimental field be reserved for use by the Forestry University, and the remainder be used to satisfy restitution claims of former owners of land in the area. In 2001, upon the initiative of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Sofia regional governor proposed to the Council of Ministers (the Government) to annul its 1960 decision concerning the expropriation of the land (see paragraph 6 above), as that decision was seen as an impediment to the completion of the restitution procedures. The proposal has never been examined by the Government. 10.     A land redistribution plan for Vrazhdebna (concerning land not included in the territory of the experimental field) was adopted in 1999 (on such plans see paragraph 48 below). 11.     In 2008 the Minister of Education once again granted the Forestry University the right to use and manage the experimental field, and initiated a procedure for the registration of that land as public State property. 12.     In 2010 the Kremikovtsi Agricultural Department (hereinafter “the Agricultural Department”) took the position that the land at issue was being used “ineffectively” by the University. It reiterated its proposal that, apart from 63,000 square metres necessary for the experimental field, the remainder of the land should be subject to restitution. 13.     In 2011 the Minister of Education sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture, explaining that the totality of the land was being used as an experimental field, and insisting that the restitution decisions concerning the territory of the field be re-examined. 14.     On 18 March 2014 the plot of land, with a surface of 340,959 square metres, was entered by the Sofia regional governor into the list of public State properties. 15.     In 2017 the Agricultural Department instructed the applicants to submit requests for the restitution in kind of their plots. 16.     In October 2018 some of the applicants brought an action against the State, contesting the registration of the land of the experimental field as public State property, and seeking a judicial declaration that that land was not such property. The Court has not been informed of the course of these proceedings. Individual restitution proceedings Applicants nos. 1-9 17.     In a decision of 18 May 1994 the Kremikovtsi land commission (hereinafter “the land commission”, after 2002 renamed as Agricultural Department, see paragraph 59 below) refused the restitution of a plot of land. After applicants nos. 1-9 sought judicial review, that decision was quashed on 26 May 1995 by the Sofia District Court, which found it sufficiently established that the applicants’ ancestor had owned the plot and that the land had been included in the agricultural cooperative. Accordingly, it stated that it “restored” the applicants’ rights to the plot “through a land redistribution plan”. 18.     Despite that, in a subsequent decision of 19 June 1995 the land commission stated that the applicants were to receive compensation in lieu of restitution. That decision was served on the applicants. 19.     The applicants did not object to the land redistribution plan for Vrazhdebna adopted in 1999 (see paragraph 10 above). 20.     In 2006 they sought a judicial declaration that the decision of 19   June 1995 was null and void. Such a declaration was made in a judgment of the Sofia District Court of 4 July 2007, which found that the impugned decision contradicted the previous judgment of 26 May 1995. 21.     In 2017 the applicants submitted a request for restitution in kind (see paragraph 15 above). In a decision of 18 January 2018 the Agricultural Department refused such restitution, noting that the land claimed by them was considered public State property, and held that the applicants were entitled to compensation. The applicants applied for judicial review. The proceedings initiated by them are still pending. Applicants nos. 10-25, 34, 37 and 44-67 22.     As concerns the restitution claims of applicants nos. 34, 37 and 61 ‑ 67, prior to 2010 the land commission, subsequently Agricultural Department, gave several decisions, which were quashed or declared null and void by the competent courts upon application by the applicants. Finally, their entitlement to restitution in kind was recognised in a decision of the Agricultural Department of 16 December 2010. 23.     In 2005-06 applicants nos. 10-25 and 44-60 brought proceedings against the Agricultural Department under section 11(2) of the 1991 Act (see paragraph 53 below), seeking a declaration that they were entitled to the restitution of different plots of land. Their claims were allowed in judgments of the Sofia District Court, which recognised the applicants’ restitution rights. After that, in decisions given in 2006 and 2007 the Agricultural Department also provided such a recognition. 24.     In 2017 the applicants submitted requests for restitution in kind (see paragraph 15 above). In four decisions dated 11 and 18 January 2018 the Agricultural Department refused such restitution, noting that the land at issue was considered public State property, and held that the applicants were entitled to compensation in lieu of restitution. The applicants applied for judicial review. The proceedings are still pending. 25.     In one of the cases (brought by applicants nos. 44-60), in a judgment of 8 January 2019 the Sofia District Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the previous judicial and administrative decisions had not ordered restitution in kind and could not give rise to title to property, but had contained a general recognition of the applicants’ entitlement to restitution. The Agricultural Department’s impugned decision had determined the manner of completing the restitution procedure, namely through the provision of compensation. Restitution in kind of the land claimed by the applicants was impossible, in particular given the requirements of section 24(2) of the 1991 Act (see paragraph 49 below). 26.     On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an appeal against that judgment. Applicants nos. 68-82, 103-16, 121-30 and 147 27.     In 2007 applicants nos. 121-30 brought proceedings against the Agricultural Department under section 11(2) of the 1991 Act, and their entitlement to restitution was recognised in a judgment of 7 March 2008 of the Sofia City Court. In a subsequent decision of 17 May 2008, which was not contested and became final, the Agricultural Department also recognised the applicants’ entitlement to restitution, holding expressly that part of the plot claimed by them could not be subject to restitution in kind since it fell within the territory of the experimental field. 28.     As concerns applicants nos. 103-08, on 9 March 1999 the land commission stated that they were entitled to compensation in lieu of restitution. In another decision which the applicants submitted, dated 20   February 2001, it recognised, in principle, their entitlement to restitution in kind. The Government contested the authenticity of that latter decision, on the ground that an original of such a decision had not been found in the Agricultural Department’s archives, and the decision with corresponding number and date concerned different plots. 29.     The entitlement of applicants nos. 68-82, 109-16 and 147 to the restitution of several plots of land in Vrazhdebna was recognised in decisions of the land commission (respectively Agricultural Department) issued on different dates in 1999 and 2010 ‑ 11. 30.     In 2017 the applicants submitted requests for restitution in kind (see paragraph 15 above). By letters sent in the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018 the Agricultural Department informed them that they had to submit cadastral plans of the plots claimed by them – documents that the applicants contend they are not able to obtain. The course of the restitution procedures after that is unclear. Applicants nos. 83-89 31.     In 2006 and 2007 applicants nos. 83-89 brought proceedings against the Agricultural Department, under section 11(2) of the 1991 Act, seeking a declaration that they were entitled to the restitution of different plots of land in Vrazhdebna. The actions were allowed by the competent courts in 2006 and 2011. 32.     In the proceedings brought by applicants nos. 83-87, in a subsequent decision of 11 January 2018 the Agricultural Department refused restitution in kind, noting that the plot of land claimed by them was considered public State property, and held that the applicants were to receive compensation. In ensuing proceedings for judicial review brought by the applicants, in a judgment of 27 December 2018 the Sofia District Court quashed the impugned decision, finding that the Agricultural Department had failed to show that any of the impediments to restitution in kind was present. The Department filed an appeal, and the appeal proceedings are pending. 33.     In the proceedings brought by applicants nos. 88-89, on 2 August 2013 the Agricultural Department refused restitution in kind of the plots claimed, noting that the land fell within the territory of the experimental field used by the Forestry University, and held that the applicants were entitled to compensation. In judicial-review proceeding brought by the applicants, that decision was quashed in a final judgment of 29 May 2014 of the Sofia District Court, which noted that the Agricultural Department had not shown that any of the impediments to restitution in kind were present, in particular since it had not submitted evidence to prove that the land at issue indeed fell within the territory of the experimental field. Accordingly, the Sofia District Court held that the applicants’ property rights were to be restored. In a subsequent decision of 26 September 2014 accompanied by a cadastral plan the Agricultural Department also ordered restitution in kind, and in 2016 the applicants obtained a notarial deed, recognising them as owners. However, they could not enter into possession of the land, since it was being held by the Forestry University. In 2017 the land register in Sofia refused to register the land as property of the applicants, noting the property dispute between them and the University and pointing out that it fell to be decided by the civil courts. Applicants nos. 32-33, 38-43, 117-20 and 140-46 34.     In judgments given in 1996-97 and 2006 the Sofia District Court recognised the entitlement of applicants nos. 32-33, 117-20 and 140-46 to the restitution of several plots of land in Vrazhdebna. In further decisions given on different dates between 1999 and 2017 the land commission, respectively the Agricultural Department, refused restitution in kind of the plots at issue and held that the applicants were to receive compensation. The applicants did not apply for judicial review of the respective decisions, and those decisions entered into force. 35.     As to applicants nos. 38-43, the land commission refused restitution in kind and held that they would receive compensation in a decision of 13   January 1995. Upon application by the applicants, that decision was declared null and void by the Sofia District Court on 19 November 2008. Subsequently, on 18 March 2009 the Agricultural Department held once again that the applicants were to receive compensation. The application for the judicial review of that decision submitted by the applicants was found inadmissible in 2011 and the decision at issue thus entered into force. Applicants nos. 38-43 submitted in addition a decision of the land commission dated 4 March 1999, restoring their property rights to the plots at issue. The document sent by them does not carry the signatures of the commission members, but has a handwritten mention that it is a valid copy, accompanied by the commission’s stamp. The Government disputed the authenticity of the document, saying that an original copy of such a decision could not be found, and that if such a decision had been validly given, it would have been pointless for the applicants to contest the initial refusal of the commission of 13 January 1995. 36.     In 2001 the land commission set the value of the compensation to be provided to applicants nos. 140-46, and the applicants made a declaration as to their preferred means of compensation. No further decision on the compensation due to them has been taken. Nor has the land commission (later on Agricultural Department) taken any decision on the compensation to be provided to applicants nos. 32-33, 38-43 and 117-20. Applicants nos. 134-39 37.     Applicants nos. 134-39 submitted a copy of a decision dated 23   March 1999, with the heading and the stamp of the Agricultural Department, stating that their property rights to several plots in Vrazhdebna were being restored. The plots were not however identified with the necessary specifications (see paragraph 55 below). The document submitted by the applicants does not carry the signatures of the Department members, but has a handwritten mention that it is a valid copy, accompanied by the Department’s stamp. The applicants stated that it had not been accompanied by a cadastral plan of the plot. 38.     The Government disputed the authenticity of the above document, and submitted another decision of the same date and bearing the same number, issued by the land commission and signed by its members, refusing restitution in kind of some of the plots claimed by the applicants and stating that the applicants would receive compensation. Another similar decision concerning the remaining plots claimed by the applicants had been issued on 12   January 1995. The Government stated that both decisions submitted by it had entered into force. The applicants, for their part, contended that they had never been notified of such decisions. Applicants nos. 90-102 and 131-33 39.     In several decisions issued in 1995 the land commission recognised the entitlement of applicants nos. 90-102 and 131-33 to the restitution of plots of land in Vrazhdebna, holding that these plots were to be returned to the applicants through a land redistribution plan. The applicants’ complaints concern some of these plots only. 40.     A land redistribution plan for the area was adopted in 1999 (see paragraph 10 above) and a number of plots of land were allotted to the applicants. The applicants did not challenge the plan. In their submissions to the Court they claimed that that plan did not concern the plots which are the subject of the present complaints. 41.     In 2001 a further decision of the land commission stated that other plots were to be returned through a land redistribution plan to applicants nos. 131-33. 42.     In 2017 applicants nos. 90-102 submitted a request for restitution in kind of the plot which is the subject of their complaints. In a letter of 30   October 2017 the Agricultural Department instructed them to submit a cadastral plan of that plot – a document which they contend not to be able to obtain. Applicants nos. 26-31 and 34-37 43.     In decisions given between 1994 and 1999 the land commission recognised the entitlement of applicants nos. 26-31 and 34-37 to the restitution of several plots of land in Vrazhdebna, through a land redistribution plan. 44.     Such a plan for the area was adopted in 1999 (see paragraph   10 above). Under it plots of land were allotted to the applicants. In December 1999 the applicants took possession of their land. Table of the proceedings 45.     The individual proceedings described above are also presented in the following table, which contains additionally data on the size of the plots claimed by the applicants: Applicants nos. Size of the plots claimed, in square metres Dates on which the applicants’ entitlement to restitution was recognised by the relevant national authorities 1-9 10,000 26 May 1995 10-14 3,600 24 October 2006 15-25 6,000 14 February 2006 26-31 2,100 10 July 1996 32-33 5,891 17 November 2006 34-37 4,000 21 June 1994 and 18 April 1996 38-43 20,500 18 March 2009 44-60 1,648 26 October 2006 34, 37 and 61-67 6,000 16 December 2010 68-82 10,000 12 May 1999 83-87 5,013 16 May 2006 88-89 6,300 26 May 2011 90-102 2,400 17 January 1995 103-08 2,800 9 March 1999 109-16 13,400 18 May 2010 117-20 3,600 23 May 1996 121-30 3,000 7 March 2008 131-33 4,500 6,500 26 November 1995 11 June 2001 135-39 12,400 12 January 1995 and 23 March 1999 140-46 3,000 2 October 1997 147 6,000 9 June 2011 RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 46.     Restitution of agricultural land is provided for in the Agricultural Land Act of 1991 ( Закон за собствеността и ползването на земеделските земи – “the 1991 Act”) and the Regulations on the Implementation of the Agricultural Land Act ( Правилник за прилагане на Закона за собствеността и ползването на земеделските земи , hereinafter “the Regulations”). Scope of the restitution 47.     The 1991 Act provides, inter alia , that persons, or their heirs, whose land has been collectivised, may request the restoration of their ownership rights under certain conditions. If their request is allowed, they can obtain restitution in kind or compensation in lieu thereof. 48.     Restitution in kind can be “in actual boundaries” (“ в стари реални граници ”) – in cases where the old borders of the plot of land once owned by the claimant or his or her ancestors are preserved or traceable (roads, fences, river banks, trees and others, which have not changed after the collectivisation), or through a so-called land redistribution plan (“ план за земеразделяне ”). Land redistribution plans set new borders of the plots to be restituted, if possible in the approximate area where the plots previously owned had been situated (section 10a(2) of the 1991 Act). 49.     The 1991 Act envisages different situations where restitution in kind (“in actual boundaries” or through a land redistribution plan) cannot be carried out and the claimants are to receive compensation in lieu thereof. Section 10(7) excludes restitution in kind in situations where third parties have lawfully constructed buildings in urbanised areas. Under section   10b(1), compensation is also to be awarded in cases where the land has been taken by a “complex of construction works” ( мероприятие ). The national courts have interpreted that latter term broadly, taking it to cover any construction or other public works, regardless of their lawfulness ( Решение № 77 от 9.03.2010 г. на ВКС по гр. д. № 4209/2008 г., I г. о., ГК ; Решение № 70 от 22.06.2010 г. на ВКС по гр. д. № 674/2009 г., I   г.   о., ГК ). In addition, under section 24(2), (3) and (4) of the 1991 Act the State retains property of land used for purposes such as education, science, archaeological studies and national defence, as well as land included in certain national parks and reserves. The existence or not of the above impediments to restitution in kind is to be assessed as of the moment of the 1991 Act’s entry into force. 50.     Additionally, if the land available for redistribution is not sufficient to satisfy the restitution claims of all former owners, they may be awarded partial compensation (section 19(1) and (8) of the Regulations). Compensation is also to be awarded in situations where a claimant has presented to the land commission/Agricultural Department a court judgment recognising his entitlement to restitution through a land redistribution plan or a judgment given in the procedure under section 11(2) of the 1999 Act (see paragraph 53 below) after a redistribution plan for the area has already been elaborated (section 11(4) of the 1991 Act and section 25(3) of the Regulations). 51.     As to compensation in lieu of restitution, it can be through comparable municipally-owned land, in so far as such land is available, or through so-called compensation bonds. Procedural rules 52.     Under section 11(1) of the 1991 Act, former owners, or their heirs, could initiate administrative proceedings for restitution within a period of seventeen months following the entry into force of the Act. They had to lodge a request for restitution with the local land commission, which had to establish whether the relevant statutory conditions for restitution were met, and if so, to issue a decision. Favourable decisions of the land commissions were not subject to judicial review and were final, whereas negative decisions were subject to judicial review (section 14(3) of the 1991 Act). 53.     Persons seeking restitution of agricultural land who had missed the seventeen-month time-limit indicated above could bring an action for a declaratory judgment against the local land commission/Agricultural Department (section 11(2) of the 1991 Act). Such a possibility existed until 2007. Where the courts decided in favour of the claimants, the administrative bodies had to comply and issue the necessary decisions. 54.     It has been the established practice of land commissions (Agricultural Departments) to issue several types of decisions during the different stages of the procedure. A first decision, based usually on an assessment of merely whether the claimants’ predecessors were the owners of the plots of land concerned and whether the land was included in an agricultural cooperative, recognises the claimants’ entitlement to restitution. Sometimes such a decision can also state that the restitution would be carried out through a land redistribution plan (section 14(1)(2) of the 1991 Act). Decisions of that type do not give rise to any title to property ( Решение № 11 от 06.02.1998 г. по гр. д. № 1480/1997, ВКС, IV гр. о. ; Решение № 43 от 3.02.2010 г. на ОС ‑ Пазарджик по в. гр. д. №   12/2010   г. ; Решение от 20.12.2017 г. на ОС-Ямбол по в. гр. д. №   318/2017 г. ). They have been referred to in the legal theory as “recognition” decisions (Венцислав Стоянов, Стойка Куртева, Юлия Стойкова, „Правен режим на земеделските земи и горските територии“, 2011, стр. 24-25). Judgments given in proceedings under section 11(2) of the 1991 Act can also only have a “recognition” effect ( Решение от 20.12.2017 г. на ОС ‑ Ямбол по в. гр. д. № 318/2017 г. ; Решение № 473 от 24.11.2014 г. на РС - Карлово по гр. д. №   235/2013   г. ). 55.     A further decision of the land commission (Agricultural Department) orders restitution “in actual boundaries” or allocates the former owners specific plots under a land redistribution plan. Such decisions – capable of giving rise to property rights and completing the restitution procedure through restitution in kind – have been known in the legal theory as “restoration” decisions. A “restoration” decision has to indicate the specifications of the plots of land concerned, namely their size, category, location and borders. Such a decision must also be accompanied by a cadastral plan of the plots. If these requirements are met, the decision at issue, after it enters into force, serves as title to property equivalent to a notarial deed (sections 14(1)(1) and 17(1) of the 1991 Act and sections   18g(1) and 27(1) and (3) of the Regulations). 56.     Nevertheless, even where such a decision has been issued and has entered into force, it can be contested by a third party having competing claims (not based on restitution) to the same plot of land, since the procedure under the 1991 Act does not permit that party’s participation and any judgments and decisions given in the restitution proceedings are not considered binding on it. The domestic courts examining such a third-party claim exercise what is called “indirect judicial review” and re-examine, in view of the new arguments put forward, whether the preconditions for restitution in kind had been in place ( Решение № 201 от 30.06.2010 г. на ВКС по гр. д. № 79/2009 г., II г. о., ГК ; Решение № 250 от 8.05.2014 г. на ВКС по гр. д. № 3215/2013 г., II г. о., ГК ; additional domestic case law is cited in Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria , no. 30383/03, § 44, 15 November 2011). 57.     Different decisions are also given by the land commissions (Agricultural Departments) with regard to the allocation of compensation in lieu of restitution. The relevant bodies are to set the value and type of compensation and, where compensation is to be through the provision of other comparable land, select and distribute the respective plots (Article 19a of the 1991 Act). 58.     Interested parties may make challenges to land redistribution plans, before the land commission or the courts, within fourteen days of their publication (section 25(2), (4) and (6) of the Regulations). 59.     The competent administrative bodies – land commissions, which were local branches of the Ministry of Agriculture – were replaced with Agricultural Departments in 2002. Relevant provisions concerning State properties 60.     Pursuant to section 7(1) of the State Property Act ( Закон за държавната собственост ), public State property cannot be transferred to private persons. 61.     Entries into the list of State-owned properties, to be effectuated by regional governors, do not in themselves give rise to property rights for the State (section 5(3) of the State Property Act). Any ownership dispute is to be determined by the courts (section 79(3) of the Act). THE LAW preliminary questions Withdrawal of the complaints by some of the applicants 62.     In their observations following the communication of the application applicants nos. 26-31 and 34-37 stated that they wished to withdraw their complaints, seeing that their restitution claims had been satisfied (see paragraphs 43-44 above). 63.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in so far as applicants nos. 26-31 and 34-37 are concerned. Accordingly, that part of the application is to be struck out of the list. The Government’s objection concerning applicants nos. 14 and 102 64.     The Government observed that applicants nos. 14 and 102, Ms   Angelina Angelova Hristova and Ms Gyurgena Traykova Mladenova, had passed away on 22 May and 20 January 2011 respectively, namely before the lodging of the application on 15 July 2011 (see paragraph   1 above). The Government urged the Court to dismiss these applicants’ complaints as inadmissible. 65.     The Court, noting that Ms Hristova and Ms Mladenova indeed passed away before the lodging of the application, finds the complaints raised on their behalf incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a), and thus rejects them in accordance with Article 35   §   4. 66.     Accordingly, when it indicates hereinafter “the applicants”, the Court will refer to the remaining applicants, excluding those discussed in paragraphs 62-65 above. The Government’s objection concerning applicants nos. 32 and 33 67.     The Government pointed out that applicants nos. 32 and 33, Ms   Varadinka Pavlova Taseva and Mr Dimitar Pavlov Toshkov, had not submitted an authority form, whereas the application had been lodged by their representatives and not by the applicants themselves. On that ground the Government urged the Court to dismiss the complaints of Ms Taseva and Mr Toshkov. 68.     After that argument had been raised, the applicants’ representatives submitted an authority form signed by those two applicants, dated 1 March 2011, as well as an invoice dated 17 March 2011 showing that Ms Taseva had paid their legal fee. Since Ms Taseva and Mr Toshkov had in the meantime passed away, the representatives submitted also statements by their heirs who wished to continue the proceedings. As to the invoice, even though it indicated Ms Taseva as the payer, it was not signed by her, but by an unknown third person. The Government pointed to this fact, and in addition contested Mr Toshkov’s signature on the authority form, noting some differences between it and his signature seen on other documents. 69.     The Court points out that, pursuant to Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court, a valid power of attorney is required where an applicant is represented in the proceedings before it. In the present case it has to determine whether the applicants themselves signed the relevant documents and, in view of all the evidence, whether the application was made with their consent and whether they maintained an interest in pursuing the case (see, for example, Velikova v. Bulgaria , no. 41488/98, §§ 48-51, ECHR 2000 ‑ VI). 70.     In the absence of any further evidence to the contrary, the Court is satisfied that Mr Toshkov signed the authority form of 1 March 2011, observing that, despite some differences, the signature contested by the Government is not dissimilar to his signature on other documents. As to the invoice, its being signed by a third person does not alter the fact that payment was made, as indicated in the document, in Ms Taseva’s name and for the purposes of her legal representation before the Court. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the two applicants at issue intended to authorise their representatives to lodge an application on their behalf and that they took the necessary action in that respect. It was apparently due to an error that the authority form was not submitted initially together with the forms signed by the remaining applicants (contrast Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no.   21727/08, 20 January 2009, where there had been no indication whatsoever that the applicant wished the person having submitted the application to represent her). The Court notes in addition that, after Ms   Taseva and Mr Toshkov passed away, their heirs wished to maintain the application. 71.     The Court finds accordingly that the application has been validly submitted on behalf of the two applicants and dismisses the Government’s objection in that regard. Abuse of the right of individual application 72.     The Government, contesting the authenticity of several documents submitted by the applicants (see paragraphs 28, 35 and 38 above), also urged the Court to dismiss the complaints of the respective groups of applicants on the ground of abuse of the right to individual application. 73.     The Court has held that an application may be rejected under Article   35 § 3 (a) of the Convention for abuse of the right of individual application if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on untruths, or if the applicant submitted incomplete or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014, and Shalyavski and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 67608/11, § 44, 15 June 2017). 74.     However, in the case at hand it has not been established whether, if the impugned documents were not authentic (see the analysis in paragraphs   93 and 116 below), the applicants were aware of this. Accordingly, it has not been proven that the applicants “knowingly” declared untruths or submitted misleading information, and the Court cannot conclude that they abused their right to individual application. It thus dismisses the Government’s objection. 75.     Nevertheless, the Court will refer to the matter in its analysis, and assess the reliability of the documents at issue when examining on the merits the respective complaints (see paragraphs 90, 93, 95 and 116 below). Locus standi of the remaining applicants’ heirs 76.     Lastly, the Court sees no reason not to accede to the wish of the heirs of the remaining applicants who passed away after the lodging of the application to continue the proceedings in their predecessors’ stead (see paragraph 1 above and the appendix). ALLEGED VIOLATIONs OF ARTICLE 1 of protocol no. 1 77.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the impossibility of obtaining the restitution in kind of their predecessors’ land in Vrazhdebna and the prolonged uncertainty in resolving their restitution claims. 78.     The Court is of the view that the complaints fall to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone, which 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.” Arguments of the parties The Government 79.     As concerns the impossibility to obtain restitution in kind, the Government argued that the complaints of many of the applicants under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were incompatible ratione materiae , since no “legitimate expectation” for them to the restitution in kind of their predecessors’ land had ever arisen. The relevant administrative and judicial bodies had only given “recognition” decisions, which meant that the exact manner of completing the restitution process had not been determined. The Government pointed out in addition that in some cases the applicants had not contested decisions of the land commission/Agricultural Department affecting them. Furthermore, in many cases proceedings regarding the scope of the applicants’ restitution rights were still pending. 80.     The Government contended that the experimental field in Vrazhdebna had for many years been used for educational purposes, even before the adoption of the 1991 Act, and that there had been no ambiguity as to its status. It was being managed by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Agriculture, through its bodies, was not competent to take any decisions concerning it. The State had legitimately retained for itself ownership in the experimental field, and the only possible manner of completing the restitution procedures initiated by the applicants was through the award of compensation. The Government relied on earlier decisions and judgments of the Court concerning restitution, such as Sivova and Koleva (cited above) and Kupenova and Others v. Bulgaria , ((dec.), no. 12664/05, 7   May 2013). 81.     Lastly, the Government argued that many of the applicants had remained inactive in the restitution procedures and had not taken the “necessary action as required by law”. In particular, it had been only in 2017, long after the initial “recognition” decisions in their favour, that many of the applicants had expressly requested restitution in kind. The proceedings had additionally been delayed due to the applicants’ “refusal to accept” that restitution in kind of their land in Vrazhdebna was impossible. The applicants 82.     The applicants argued that a large part of the national authorities’ actions related to their restitution claims had been “clearly designed and undoubtedly aimed” at accomplishing restitution in kind. They considered that even after the registration of the territory of the experimental field in Vrazhdebna as public State property the bodies of the Ministry of Agriculture had “maintained” in them the expectation that they would obtain such restitution. At the same time, other State bodies, in particular the Council of Ministers and the regional governor, had “manifestly in bad faith” obstructed that process. 83.     In support of the above arguments the applicants relied on the Court’s earlier restitution cases of Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria (no.   18967/03, 3 December 2009), Hadzhigeorgievi v. Bulgaria (no.   41064/05, 16 July 2013) and Velcheva v. Bulgaria (no. 35355/08, 9   June 2015). 84.     At the same time, the applicants stated that the State authorities’ obligation was to complete the restitution procedures, in any of the manners provided for by law, and within a reasonable time. If restitution in kind was impossible, they had had to award compensation. For many years the authorities had failed to complete the procedures, and had in addition kept the applicants in prolonged uncertainty as to the scope of their restitution rights and the feasibility of restitution in kind. The applicants, for their part, had cooperated with the authorities and had complied with any instructions they had been given. 85.     In so far as the Government contested the authenticity of documents submitted by the applicants (see paragraphs 28, 35 and 38 above), the applicants argued that such contestation was impermissible in the proceedings before the Court. The Court’s assessment Complaint related to the impossibility for the applicants to obtain restitution in kind Admissibility 86.     According to the Court’s settled case ‑ law, applicants may allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in so far as the impugned decisions relate to their “possessions” within the meaning of that provision. “Possessions” can be either “existing possessions” or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicants can argue that they have at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX, and Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos. 71916/01 and 2   others, § 74, ECHR 2005-V). 87.     The present cases do not concern “existing possessions” of the applicants, since most of the restitution procedures initiated by them have not ended and none of the applicants has entered into possession of the land claimed. It remains therefore to be determined whether the applicants could be said to have acquired a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining the restitution in kind they have sought. 88.     In that regard, the Court has previously accepted that legislation enacted or in force after the ratification of the Convention and Protocol No.   1 and providing for full or partial restoration of property co