CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 septembre 2021

.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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E1F8B46 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3B2F4E5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7A7B69A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; 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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; 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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD235C05 { width:205.98pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SAKSKOBURGGOTSKI AND CHROBOK v. BULGARIA (Applications nos. 38948/10 and 8954/17)         JUDGMENT   Art 1 P1 • Control of the use of property • Disproportionate ban on any commercial exploitation of forests allegedly obtained through restitution • No allegation of unlawful activity prior to ban, nor demonstration of inadequacy of existing legislative tools • Lengthy moratorium initially intended as temporary, with no possibility for applicants to contest it Art 6 § 1 • Access to court • Parliamentary decision imposing moratorium not open to judicial review   STRASBOURG 7 September 2021 FINAL   28/02/2022   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sakskoburggotski and Chrobok v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Tim Eicke, President,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,   Maiia Petrova Rousseva, ad hoc judge, and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   38948/10 and 8954/17) 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, Mr Simeon Borisov Sakskoburggotski (“the first applicant”) and a Bulgarian and German national, Ms Maria-Luisa Borisova Chrobok (“the second applicant”, together “the applicants”), on 16 June 2010 and 13 January 2017 respectively; the decision of the Chamber to join the applications, to give notice to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) of the applicants’ complaints examined in the present judgment, and to declare inadmissible the complaints of the remaining initial applicants in application no. 38948/10, as well as, in its entirety, another application lodged by the applicants (see Sakskoburggotski and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 38948/10 and 2 others, 20 March 2018); the fact that the German Government did not avail themselves of the possibility to submit written comments in view of the second applicant’s German nationality; the parties’ observations; Considering that Mr Yonko Grozev, the judge elected in respect of Bulgaria, was unable to sit in the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court), and that on 22 November 2017 the President of the Chamber appointed Ms   Maiia Rousseva to sit as an ad hoc judge in his place (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule   29); Having deliberated in private on 15 June and 6 July 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last-mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the attempts of the applicants – the former King of Bulgaria and his sister – to obtain the restitution of former properties of the Crown, as well as a moratorium on any transfer of property and on the commercial exploitation of some of these properties, which were in the possession of the applicants. THE FACTS 2 .     The first applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Sofia. The second applicant was born in 1933 and lives in the United States of America. The applicants are brother and sister. They were represented by Mr   M.   Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv, and Ms E. Hristova , a lawyer practicing in Sofia. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agents, Ms M. Dimitrova and Ms I. Stancheva-Chinova of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as apparent from documents available to the public , may be summarised as follows. The Bulgarian monarchy 5.     The modern Bulgarian State was created in 1878 as a principality ( Княжество ). In 1908 it was proclaimed a kingdom ( Царство ). Its first monarch, Prince Alexander I, ruled until 1886. 6.     In 1887 an Austrian prince, Ferdinand, was crowned as Prince ( Княз ) Ferdinand I. In 1908 he became King ( Цар ). 7 .     Ferdinand I abdicated in 1918 and his son Boris acceded to the throne as King Boris III. Ferdinand passed away in exile in 1948. 8.     In 1930 King Boris III married the Italian princess Giovanna di Savoia. Their daughter, Maria-Luisa (the second applicant), was born in 1933 and their son, Simeon (the first applicant), in 1937. 9.     King Boris III passed away on 28 August 1943 and on the same day the first applicant acceded to the throne as King Simeon II. 10 .     In 1944 the communist party took power in Bulgaria. On 15   September 1946 the communist authorities held a referendum on the form of government to be established. After more than 90% of the participants voted for a republic, the monarchy was abolished. The royal family left the country on 16 September 1946. They went to Egypt, and after 1951 settled in Spain. The Queen Mother, Giovanna, passed away in 2000. The first applicant’s return to Bulgaria 11 .     The first applicant visited Bulgaria in 1996 and on several occasions thereafter. In 2001 he returned to the country indefinitely. 12 .     In 2001 he founded a political party, which won the general elections. On 24 July 2001 the first applicant was sworn in as Prime Minister. He remained in this post until 17 August 2005. The next Government, in power between 17 August 2005 and 27 July 2009, was formed by a coalition of three parties, including the first applicant’s party. The property of the Crown under the Kingdom and the properties subsequently claimed by the applicants The Civil List 13.     Under the Constitution of the Kingdom, the King received a yearly sum of money to cover his expenses and those of his household. That money became known as “the Civil List”. The Civil List and the properties of the Crown were managed by the Intendancy of the King’s Civil List (hereafter “the Intendancy”), created in 1890 by Ferdinand I. The Intendancy would also represent the King in civil transactions. The 1947 Act 14.     In December 1947, following the abolition of the monarchy (see paragraph 10 above), Parliament passed the Act on Declaring State Property the Properties of the Families of the Former Kings Ferdinand and Boris and their Heirs (hereafter “the 1947 Act”, see paragraph 126 below). 15 .     Prior to that, in September 1946, the Intendancy prepared a list of the properties of the Crown on the basis of which the 1947 Act was later implemented. It was validated by the then Prime Minister Kimon Georgiev and subsequently came to be known as “the Kimon Georgiev list”. The list included a section entitled “Personal properties owned by the former King”, which contained, among others, all properties described in paragraphs 25-48 below. It also mentioned 452 hectares of forestry land in the Samokov area (see paragraphs 49–56 below). 16.     After 1947 the former properties of the Crown belonged to, and were used by, the Bulgarian State. Developments leading up to the 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court 17.     After the first applicant’s return to Bulgaria (see paragraph 11 above), he and the second applicant expressed an interest in the restitution of some of the former properties of the Crown. The first applicant did not wish however such restitution to be effectuated via an Act of Parliament and sought other means to achieve it. 18.     The applicants submitted a newspaper article, published on 23   March 2006 in the Trud daily and citing a former member of the Constitutional Court, Mr Georgi Markov. He described the situation after the first applicant’s return to Bulgaria as follows: “[During a private meeting in 1997] Simeon II made it clear that he did not wish a debate in Parliament on the royal properties which, given the majority of the [Bulgarian Socialist Party], would result in an easily predictable vote. According to him, this would give rise to meaningless debate, and would provide an occasion for ill-wishers to wave the flags of “monarcho-fascism” and the “robbing of the nation”. He obviously wished that the properties be returned – if possible – through the magistracy, which is politically unaligned, since he did not wish to be indebted to any political party. It was obvious that the [1947 Act] could be challenged before the [Constitutional Court], but the question who should apply to it remained open. The King did not wish this to be a political body – the President, the Council of Ministers, a group of MPs. It was unthinkable to convene the plenaries of the [Supreme Administrative Court] or the [Supreme Court of Cassation]. This left the Chief Public Prosecutor. In March 1998 I had lunch with [the then Chief Public Prosecutor]. I noted that even former communists had received their former properties, while his Majesty had to sleep in hotels. Some MPs had already discussed the matter with the Chief Public Prosecutor, who expressed his surprise at the fact that no one had until then addressed the prosecution authorities. Such address followed soon. It came from a friend of mine, [A.D.]. She sent an indignant letter to the Chief Public Prosecutor, asking how it could be that, in a State ruled by law, some people could have their properties restituted, and others, such as the royal family – not.” 19 .     As a result of the above developments, in early 1998 the Chief Public Prosecutor applied to the Constitutional Court to have the 1947 Act declared unconstitutional. 20 .     In judgment no. 12 of 4 June 1998 (hereafter “the 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court”, see paragraphs 132-133 below), the Constitutional Court allowed the application, holding unanimously that the 1947 Act contradicted certain provisions of the Constitution, namely those guaranteeing the right to property and prohibiting discrimination. Properties claimed by the applicants and subsequent developments concerning them 21.     After the 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court, and apparently considering that it had given rise to restitution in their favour, the applicants sought the return of some of the properties used previously by the royal family. Below is a description of these properties, as well as of the developments concerning them after the judgment at issue. Princess Evdokia’s house in Sofia 22 .     Before 1946 Princess Evdokia – daughter of Ferdinand I and aunt of the applicants – had lived in a two-storey house, built on a plot of land in Sofia measuring 7,185 square metres. She had bought it from a private party in 1937. Princess Evdokia left Bulgaria in 1946 with the applicants and their mother. 23 .     In a decision of 12 December 1999 (amended by a further decision of 23 November 2000), the mayor of Sofia, referring to the 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 20 above), removed the property from the list of municipal properties and ordered that possession be transferred to the heirs of Kings Ferdinand I and Boris III. 24 .     In 2001 the applicants sold the property to a private investor, who demolished the house and constructed residential buildings on the site. The Vrana Estate 25 .     The Vrana Estate, on the outskirts of Sofia, consists of a park (a botanical garden) measuring 992,672 square metres, a palace built on 2,013 square metres and several auxiliary buildings. The estate was created at the beginning of the twentieth century and the palace itself was built between 1909 and 1912. After 1947 it was considered to be State property and in 1988 was allocated for use to the People’s Council (local authority) in Sofia. On 3 November 1999 it was registered as the private municipal property of the Sofia municipality. 26 .     In a decision of 23 January 2001 (amended on 7 August 2001) the mayor of Sofia, referring to the 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court, removed the property from the list of municipal properties and ordered that possession be transferred to the heirs of Kings Ferdinand I and Boris III. 27 .     In August 2001 the applicants donated 968,097 square metres of the park to the Sofia municipality, on condition that it be maintained as a botanical garden and be open to the public. The notarial deed mentioned that they would retain for themselves 3,203 square metres of the land, which had been taken by buildings, and an additional 21,372 square metres of the park. On 18 September 2001 the applicants obtained a notarial deed, recognising them as owners of a plot of 21,372 square metres of land . 28 .     The Vrana palace is currently the first applicant’s principal residence. The Banya estate 29 .     The estate is situated in Banya, a thermal resort in the vicinity of Karlovo. It consists of a plot of land measuring 10,598 square metres and two buildings, one two-storey and measuring 90 square metres and the other one-storey and measuring 100 square metres. The land was acquired by King Boris III between 1928 and 1935 and the buildings were constructed around 1930. The property was registered as State-owned in 1996. 30.     In 2001 the applicants requested the return of this property. In a decision of 28 December 2004, the governor of the Plovdiv region, referring to the 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court and notary deeds from 1928 and 1929, removed the property from the list of State properties and ordered that possession be transferred to “those entitled”. 31.     In a report prepared by a parliamentary commission set up to inquire into the presumed restitution in favour of the royal family and presented to Parliament on 17 August 2006 (see paragraph 59 below), Boris III’s property rights to this estate were said to have been “incontestable”. 32 .     In 2012 the applicants mortgaged the property. The mortgage was discharged in 2017. The second applicant has her registered address in Bulgaria in the Banya estate. The Bistritsa estate 33 .     The estate consists of a palace covering an area of 550 square metres, a number of auxiliary buildings and a plot of land measuring 197,923 square metres. It is situated in the resort of Borovets in the foothills of the Rila Mountain. The palace was constructed between 1898 and 1914. In 1930 the Intendancy obtained a notary deed, indicating that it had become the owner of the property on the basis of adverse possession. 34 .     In a decision of 31 August 2000, concerning also other properties (see paragraph 51 below), the Samokov land commission, relying on the Forests Restitution Act (see paragraph 143 below), restored the applicants’ property rights to the land of the estate, mentioning that the property included “a building/historical monument”. 35 .     On an unspecified date the estate was registered as public State property. On 14 October 2002 the Government took a decision to register it as private State property. 36 .     In a decision of 18 October 2002, the Governor of the Plovdiv region removed the property from the list of State properties and ordered that possession be transferred to “those entitled”. The Sitnyakovo estate 37 .     The estate consists of a palace covering an area of 580 square metres, auxiliary buildings and land measuring 20,368 square metres. It is situated in the Rila Mountain. 38.     In 1981 the palace was declared a cultural monument. 39.     In 1995 the Government authorised the use of the estate by the Union of Bulgarian Writers. 40.     On 19 June 2003 the buildings were registered as private State property. 41 .     In a decision of 17 November 2003, the Governor of the Sofia region, referring to the 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court, removed the buildings from the list of State properties and ordered that possession be transferred to “those entitled”. The decision noted that the buildings had been constructed on forestry land, without specifying who owned it. The Saragyol estate 42 .     The estate consisted of a hunting lodge covering an area of 292   square metres and two auxiliary buildings. All the buildings were constructed between 1904 and 1914 on land which is currently part of the Rila National Park. 43.     After 1947 the property was used by a hunting association, and after 1956 by a State body. In 1987 it was registered as State property, and on 1   September 2001 was once again registered as public State property. The applicants requested the transfer of possession of this property in 1998, but no decision was taken at the time. 44 .     On 14 October 2002, by Government decision, the complex was registered as private State property. On 18 October 2002, the Governor of the Sofia region, referring to that decision and the 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court, removed the buildings from the list of State properties and ordered that possession be transferred to “those entitled”. The Krichim estate 45.     That estate consists of a palace covering an area of 770 square metres, numerous auxiliary buildings and land measuring 371,500 square metres, situated in the foothills of the Rhodopi Mountain in the Plovdiv region. It was constructed in 1901. 46.     In 2007 the property was registered as public State property. It is currently used by a Government body. 47 .     On an unspecified date the applicants applied to the Governor of Plovdiv region to remove the property from the lists of State properties. Their application was rejected on 24 July 2007. 48 .     After the applicants applied for the judicial review of the refusal, the Supreme Administrative Court found their application inadmissible in a final judgment of 10 November 2008, noting that registration and deregistration of properties as private or public property of the State were “internal” and “technical” actions for the administration and could not in themselves affect any rights the applicants might have had. If the applicants claimed to be the owners of the estate, they had to bring a civil action. Forestry land 49 .     On 23 November 1998, within the time-limit provided for in section   13(1) of the Forests Restitution Act 1997 (see paragraph 143 below), the applicants applied for the restitution of two plots of forestry land in the area of Samokov and Rila Mountain, measuring 2.2 and 2,148   hectares respectively. In support of this application they submitted two notary deeds of 1930, indicating that the owner of those properties was the Intendancy, which had acquired them on the basis of adverse possession. 50 .     Further to that application, on 30 June 2000 the Samokov land commission (after 2002 renamed “agriculture department”) adopted two   decisions ordering the restitution to the heirs of Ferdinand I and Boris   III of several plots to a total area of 4.35 hectares. Both decisions stated that they were based on decisions taken on 9 July 2003 [ sic ]. 51 .     On 31 August 2000 the Samokov land commission took two further decisions, ordering the restitution to the heirs of Ferdinand I and Boris III of numerous plots to a total area of 1,062.6 hectares. Both decisions stated that they were based on a decision taken on 10 March 2000; such document has not been presented by the parties. As mentioned in paragraph 34 above, one   of the properties in the list was the Bistritsa estate. 52 .     Two more decisions were taken on 9 July 2003. The Samokov agriculture department (previously named “land commission”) ordered the restitution to the heirs of Ferdinand I and Boris III of several more plots to a total area of 587.39 hectares. 53 .     The total area of the land held to be subject to restitution was thus about 1,654 hectares. 54 .     The above decisions of the land commission/agriculture department, not having been appealed against, entered into force. They were supplemented by plans of the corresponding plots. The applicants entered into possession of the land. 55 .     On an unspecified date, most likely in 2005, the head of the National Forest Authority (currently named Executive Forests Agency) approved a forestry plan on the management and economic use of the applicants’ forests. Subsequently the applicants had carried out logging operations. 56 .     In 2007 and 2008 the applicants sold some of the plots to third   parties. relevant Parliamentary motions and decisions 57 .     In February 2004 several members of Parliament introduced a Bill which proposed the imposition of “an injunction on the immoveable and the moveable properties under the [1947 Act]”. It also proposed a stay of “the procedures concerning the return of the above properties” and a ban on any commercial exploitation of the restituted forests. It stated that any property rights held by the heirs of the former Kings were to be regulated by an Act adopted by Parliament. However, the bill was never scheduled for examination by Parliament. 58 .     In July 2005 members of Parliament introduced another Bill declaring null and void all administrative decisions considered to restore property rights to the royal family. This bill was never tabled in Parliament either. 59 .     In 2006 a parliamentary commission was set up with the task of investigating the presumed restitution in favour of the royal family. Its report, presented to members of Parliament on 17 August 2006, described the properties transferred to the heirs of the former Kings and the respective administrative procedures. It presented the conflicting opinions of its members, in particular on two questions: 1) the legal status of the Intendancy and whether it had acquired properties for the State or for the Kings in their private capacity, and 2) any restitution effect of the 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 20 above). After discussion, Parliament adopted a decision stating that it accepted the report, rejecting proposals from the opposition to conclude that it considered the transfer of a number of properties to the applicants contrary to law. 60 .     On 18 December 2009 Parliament took a decision, imposing a moratorium on any transfer of property and on any commercial exploitation of the properties which could be considered to have been restituted to the applicants (see paragraph 137 below). At the date of the latest communication from the parties (October 2020) those measures were still in force. The applicants’ complaints to the Court with regard to the moratorium were introduced on 16 June 2010. Judicial proceedings Concerning the Krichim estate 61.     On 29 May 2008 the applicants brought rei vindicatio proceedings against the State (see paragraph 154 below), contending that they owned the Krichim estate (as mentioned in paragraph 48 above, in November 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court also indicated that if the applicants were to show that they were the owners, they were to bring such proceedings). The Krichim estate was the only property claimed by the applicants of which they had not obtained the possession (see paragraph 47 above). 62.     The applicants claimed that previously their father, King Boris III, had acquired ownership of the estate through adverse possession, the property having been in the possession of the Intendancy in his name after his accession to the throne in 1918. The applicants argued that the Intendancy had merely represented the “civil personality” of the King. 63 .     The claim was dismissed by the Plovdiv Regional Court in a judgment on 9 July 2010. This judgment was upheld on 10 March 2011 by the Plovdiv Court of Appeal. The domestic courts found that it had not been shown that the estate had been the private property of the Kings, most notably because it had been in the possession of the Intendancy which, being a State body, had held it for the State. The domestic courts found further that the “Kimon Georgiev list” mentioning that the estate at issue was the personal property of the King (see paragraph 15 above) could not validly establish any property rights. 64.     The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. 65.     In a decision of 2 February 2012, the Supreme Court of Cassation (hereafter “the Supreme Court”) accepted it for examination, considering it necessary to adjudicate on the legal status of the Intendancy. 66 .     In a judgment of 8 June 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Plovdiv Court of Appeal. On the question accepted for examination, it held as follows: “The normative documents from that historical period provide an unequivocal answer to the question what kind of institution the Intendancy of the Civil List was. All regulations on the structure and the functions of that Palace service tasked with providing normal work conditions to the institution deemed to be the most important under the Constitution, namely the monarchy, have been preserved. ... Under section 3 of the Rules of the Intendancy ... the Intendancy is the body representing the Royal Court under civil law ... It is tasked with a wide range of functions aimed at ensuring the activities of the King, as Head of State, which means that it is a State body ... and that it has acquired, since the time of its creation, legal personality and capacity enabling it to secure and carry out the rights and obligations assigned to it under its Rules as the body responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the King, precisely as Head of State, and his family. ... The Intendancy performed its tasks through financing from the State budget and owned and managed a substantial portfolio of movable and immovable properties: palaces, museums, zoological and botanical gardens, hunting and agricultural estates, stables, cars and so on. ... The amount of the Civil List paid by the State budget increased insignificantly [throughout the years], whereas the sum from the budget for the maintenance and functioning of the Intendancy of the Civil List increased much more rapidly and with more substantial amounts. ... Thus, for example, the budget for 1939 [of the Civil List of the King and the apanage provided to other members of the royal family] totalled 6,229,205 levs. This is a small part of the budget for the maintenance and the work of the Intendancy, which for 1939 was set at 28,246,873 levs, which is many times higher. .... This undoubtedly means that the Intendancy ... cannot be equated to the Civil List itself and does not operate merely with the amount representing the Civil List. The Intendancy ... which, among many other functions related to the maintenance of the monarch as Head of State, managed his Civil List, should be distinguished from the Civil List itself – the sum paid by the State budget for the King’s personal expenses, for his upkeep as a private individual and [that] of his family. [Thus] the Intendancy was not created merely and only to manage the King’s Civil List”. 67 .     On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that in the case at hand the applicants had not shown that the Intendancy had been in adverse possession of the property claimed by them for the Kings and not for the State. They had thus failed to show that their predecessors – the former Kings – had been the owners of that property and their claims had no merit. Concerning the Saragyol estate The State’s claims against the applicants 68 .     On 30 May 2011 the Minister of Public Works, acting on behalf of the State, brought a rei vindicatio action (see paragraph 154 below), claiming that the State owned the Saragyol estate, occupied by the applicants on the strength of the decision of the regional governor of 18   October 2002 (see paragraph 44 above). The claim was specifically based on the fact that the buildings had been constructed on State land and had thus become the property of the State ( приращение ). The Minister also sought compensation from the applicants for their use of the property between 2006 and 2011. 69 .     The first and second applicants contested the claims. They brought a counterclaim asking, were they to be ordered to surrender possession, to be allowed to retain the property until the State reimbursed the expenses incurred by them for its maintenance. 70 .     On an unspecified date the Sofia Regional Court imposed an interim injunction, which was entered into the property register on 1 September 2011. Under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, such an injunction means that the party against whom it is issued is forbidden from passing on property rights and from modifying or damaging the property at issue (see, for more details, paragraph 152 below). Judgment of the Sofia Regional Court 71 .     The Sofia Regional Court delivered judgment on 28 August 2014. 72 .     Analysing the legislation in force at the time when the disputed buildings had been constructed, namely between 1904 and 1914 (see paragraph 42 above), it concluded that the land on which they had been constructed had been State property. Even though there were no documents substantiating its rights, the State enjoyed “residual” ownership, as there were no claims that the land had been private or municipal. The applicants’ predecessors had not acquired the right to construct on the land ( право на строеж ), which would have allowed them to gain ownership of the buildings. This meant that at the time of their construction the buildings had become State property as well. The former Kings could not have acquired them through adverse possession; even if it could be acknowledged that they had established such possession, the running of the relevant time-limits (twenty years at the time) had been interrupted by law and had not expired by the time the royal family had left Bulgaria. 73 .     The Sofia Regional Court also addressed the effect of the quashing of the 1947 Act by the Constitutional Court in 1998 (see paragraph 20 above). It pointed out that the 1947 Act had had a one-off effect, which meant that the 1998 judgment, which only had an effect ex nunc , could not retroactively annul its consequences. 74 .     As to the applicants’ argument that they had in any event acquired the disputed property on the basis of other restitution legislation, namely section 2(2) of the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Immovable Property Act (hereafter “the Restitution Act”, see paragraphs 141-142 below), the Sofia Regional Court pointed out that the provision was inapplicable, as it referred to the taking of property “not under statutory conditions”, which was not the case here, the State having passed the 1947   Act. 75 .     Lastly, the applicants claimed that they could have acquired the disputed property through adverse possession, having occupied it since 2002. The Sofia Regional Court also dismissed that argument. It pointed out that the Governor’s 2002 decision to transfer possession of the property to the applicants (see paragraph 44 above) could not have given rise to property rights, which meant that they could not claim to be bona fide possessors, and the period of adverse possession applicable to them was ten   years (see paragraph 155 below); that period had not expired by the time the State had brought its action. 76.     Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Sofia Regional Court found that the State owned the disputed property and ordered the applicants to surrender possession. 77 .     As to the State’s claim for compensation against them (see paragraph 68 in fine above), the domestic court dismissed it, noting that the State had itself taken the erroneous decision to allow the applicants to use the property. Lastly, it also dismissed the applicants’ request to be allowed to retain the property until the reimbursement of the expenses which they had incurred for maintaining the buildings since 2002 (see paragraph 69 above). Judgment of the Sofia Court of Appeal 78.     The applicants appealed. The Minister of Public Works also lodged an appeal, contesting the dismissal by the Sofia Regional Court of the State’s claim for compensation against them. 79.     The Sofia Court of Appeal delivered judgment on 30 July 2015, upholding the lower court’s findings as to the State’s property rights. 80 .     In contrast, it reversed the lower court’s judgment inasmuch as it concerned the State’s compensation claim. Relying on section 73(1) of the Property Act (see paragraph 157 below), it allowed this claim, awarding the State 30,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN – approximately 15,340 euros (EUR)). In addition, it acknowledged that the applicants had incurred expenses necessary for maintaining the buildings, amounting to BGN 13,099 (approximately EUR 6,700). Deducting this from the sum awarded to the State, it ordered the applicants to pay the State BGN 16,901 (approximately EUR 8,640). Judgment of the Supreme Court 81.     The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. 82.     In a decision of 8 February 2016, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal for examination, noting that it had to examine several questions raised by the applicants. 83 .     The Supreme Court delivered judgment on 14 July 2016. On the first   question raised by the applicants, concerning the State’s property rights to forestry land under the legislation in force between 1904 and 1914, it held that it had not been necessary for a particular plot of land to have been formally registered as State property; that applied in all cases not concerning the property of private individuals or a municipality. Thus, in the case at hand, the land on which the disputed buildings had been constructed had been State property. The Supreme Court was prepared to accept that those buildings had been constructed with King Ferdinand I’s own money. However, as he had not acquired the right to construct on the land allowing him to gain ownership of the buildings, the buildings had become State property. 84 .     The Supreme Court then considered whether, under the Constitution and the legislation of the Kingdom, the King could, in principle, acquire property through adverse possession. It held that this was possible, but only where the King was acting in a private capacity and not as Head of State. In addition, after a King had abdicated, any adverse possession which he had established could not then be continued by the next King, the abdication having only public-law and not private-law implications. Applied to the facts of the present case, this meant that any adverse possession established by Boris III could not be joined to that of Ferdinand I, and that when Boris   III had acceded to the throne in 1918 (see paragraph 7 above) the relevant time-limits had started running anew. Neither of the two Kings had been in adverse possession of the property for the period of time required by statute (twenty years at the time) after 1918, owing, in particular, to various interruptions of the running of the time-limits by operation of the law. 85 .     On the next question, concerning the legal effect of the 1998   judgment of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 20 above), the Supreme Court held that that judgment could not “undo” any property rights acquired by the State on the basis of the 1947 Act and could not restore the situation existing prior to the enactment of that Act. This was so because the 1947 Act had had a one-off effect, which had been completed at the time of its enactment. Only the body having passed the 1947 Act, Parliament, could take a new decision on the question of the former Kings’ property, where it judged it appropriate and in the manner it judged appropriate. The 1998   judgment of the Constitutional Court relied on by the applicants could thus not alone restore any rights that their predecessors might have had. The judgment remained akin to a “moral assessment”, demonstrating the Constitutional Court’s view on the “historical compatibility or incompatibility of an Act which is no longer applicable with the values of the modern Constitution”. 86 .     The Supreme Court held further that the applicants could not claim to have had their rights restored on the basis of section 2(2) of the Restitution Act 1992 (see paragraph 142 below), as its preconditions had not been met: the applicants had not shown that their predecessors had owned the property claimed, and in any event, even if this had been so, that property could not be said to have been taken by the State “not under statutory conditions”, as required by that section. 87 .     The 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court could not lead to the applicants being considered as bona fide possessors of the property after 2002, justifying, arguably, the application of the five ‑ year period of adverse possession (see paragraph 155 below). This held because the 1998 judgment could not restore any property rights lost by the applicants, and the 2002   decision of the regional governor transferring possession of the property to them (see paragraph 44 above) was even less capable of doing so. Thus, the applicants’ possession after 2002 had been based on no valid legal ground, and the ten-year period of adverse possession applied, which had not expired by 2011 when the State had brought an action against them (see paragraph 68 above). 88.     On the basis of the above, the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ judgments, in so far as they had allowed the State’s rei vindicatio action against the applicants. 89 .     Unlike the Sofia Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court held that the applicants were not liable to pay compensation to the State for having used the property after 2002. While, indeed, section 73(1) of the Property Act provided that mala fide possessors were liable to reimburse any profit received from the contested property (see paragraph 157 below), in the circumstances of the present case finding the applicants automatically liable on that ground for the period preceding the final judgment on the State’s rei   vindicatio action would be a disproportionate measure, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. This was so because, even if the State had allowed the applicants to use the property without valid legal ground, this had been through its own error. 90 .     Lastly, the Supreme Court confirmed that the State was to reimburse the applicants’ expenses for maintaining the buildings after 2002 (see paragraph 80 above), and authorised them to retain the property until that sum was paid to them. 91.     The applicants’ complaints to the Court related to the proceedings above were introduced on 13 January 2017. Concerning the Sitnyakovo estate The State’s claims against the applicants 92 .     On 24 March 2011 the Minister of Public Works, representing the State, brought a rei vindicatio action against the applicants (see paragraph   154 below), seeking to recover possession of the Sitnyakovo estate. He argued that the estate, occupied by the applicants on the strength of the decision of the regional governor of 17 November 2003 (see paragraph 41 above), was State property. In addition, the Minister sought compensation from the applicants for their use of the property between 2003 and 2011. 93.     The applicants contested the claims. They brought a counterclaim seeking reimbursement of the expenses which they had incurred in maintaining the property after 2003 and requesting to be allowed to retain the property pending payment by the State. 94 .     Upon a request by the State, in a decision of 20 June 2011 the Sofia Regional Court imposed an interim injunction on the disputed property. Judgment of the Sofia Regional Court 95 .     In a judgment of 31 October 2014, the Sofia Regional Court acknowledged that the State owned the disputed property and ordered the applicants to surrender possession. 96.     It noted, firstly, that the applicants had not claimed to be the owners of the land of the estate and that it was State property. 97 .     As regards the buildings, the Sofia Regional Court pointed out that the State claimed to have become their owner by dint of adverse possession. The buildings had been in the possession of the Intendancy, whose status had already been examined by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 8   June   2012 (in the proceedings concerning the Krichim estate, see paragraphs 66-67 above). The Intendancy had been a State body, exercising rights on behalf of the State. Thus, the State had become the owner of the property after the expiry of the relevant period of adverse possession. It had not been established that Ferdinand I or Boris III had personally been in adverse possession of the property. 98 .     In any event, the royal family had lost any right to property that they might have had with the enactmen