CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sBC330D85 { width:11.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2166BD3A { width:66.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA96FEAF8 { width:22.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5CDDED00 { width:11.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEE3B17D3 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC40C731D { width:66.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s831E238E { width:22.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 53274/13 Ekaterina Petrova GELKOVA and Others against Bulgaria (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11   March 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17   August 2013, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants are all Bulgarian nationals who reside or resided in Sofia. The applicants were represented by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev, Ms   G.   Chernicherska and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the excessive duration of restitution proceedings initiated by them were communicated to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”). Two applicants (see appended table below) have died after the institution of the proceedings before the Court. The applicants’ heirs (see below) wished to pursue the application. The Government accepted the locus standi of the heirs in the proceedings. THE LAW The Court firstly takes note of the information regarding the death of the two applicants and the wish of their heirs to continue the proceedings in their stead, as well as the absence of an objection on the Government’s part to their standing. Therefore, the Court considers that the heirs of Ms   Gelkova and Ms Stoycheva, as indicated in the table below, have a legitimate interest in pursuing the application. The Court further observes that the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The declaration, received by the Court on 1 December 2020, read as follows: “By means of the present declaration the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria acknowledge a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights in the above-mentioned case. The violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 stems from the excessive delay and lengthy uncertainty in the proceedings initiated by the applicants concerning restitution of agricultural land. In view of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, the Government offer to pay jointly to Violeta Vasileva Raleva (heir of Ekaterina Petrova Gelkova), Desislava Traykova Kirilova, Lilyana Boyanova Petkova, Yonka Stoycheva Hristova (heir of Aleksandra Petrova Stoycheva) and Elena Petrova Vaneva EUR 3,300 (three thousand and three hundred euros), to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants (respectively their heirs). Such payment shall not prejudice the applicants’ (respectively their heirs’) entitlement under domestic law to seek restitution or compensation in lieu of restitution. The sum above will be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of the notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” The applicants (respectively their heirs) were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration. They commented in a letter dated 4   January 2021, considering the amount of compensation proposed by the Government unjust and low. The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article   37 §   1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning the excessive duration of restitution proceedings in Bulgaria (see, for example, Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria , no. 69855/01, 7 January 2010; Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria , no. 30383/03, 15 November 2011; Nedelcheva and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 5516/05, 28 May 2013; Popov and Chonin v.   Bulgaria , no. 36094/08, 17 February 2015; Zikatanova and Others v.   Bulgaria , no.   45806/11, 12   December 2019). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1   (c)). In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention (see Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides that Ms Vioileta Vasileva Raleva and Yonka Stoycheva Hristova have locus standi in the proceedings, as heirs of the applicants, Ms   Gelkova and Ms Stoycheva, respectively; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 1 April 2021.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s (heir’s) name   Year of birth of the applicant     Ekaterina Petrova GELKOVA (Passed away on 26 June 2017, heir Vioileta Vasileva Raleva) 1934   Desislava Traykova KIRILOVA 1980   Lilyana Boyanova PETKOVA 1949   Aleksandra Petrova STOYCHEVA (Declared dead in absentia on 16 October 2014, heir Yonka Stoycheva Hristova) 1931   Elena Petrova VANEVA 1975