CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 septembre 2025

.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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; 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 } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF74FAE64 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8.5pt } .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 } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; 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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .sCEDB100B { width:137.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s817F5625 { width:113.76%; border-collapse:collapse } .s28BE940D { width:6.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sAE7FCEFB { width:42.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE9A3B029 { width:12.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFBBA9287 { width:23.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD10C8DD8 { width:14.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF0AA8FC7 { width:6.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBF02554 { width:42.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCAB9AE91 { width:12.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s657899AA { width:23.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF244201 { width:14.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF CHONIN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Application no. 30116/23)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 30 September 2025         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Chonin and Others v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   30116/23) 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”) on 20   July 2023 by ten Bulgarian nationals (two of them holding in addition Belgian and German nationalities), whose relevant details are listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), and who were represented by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev, Ms   K.   Boncheva and Ms M. Dokova-Kostadinova, lawyers practising in Plovdiv; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the lengthy duration of a restitution procedure to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Tsocheva from the Ministry of Justice, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the fact that the Governments of Belgium and Germany did not make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 9 September 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the length of restitution proceedings under the Restitution of Title to Forests and Forestry Land Act (hereinafter “the Forests Restitution Act”). 2.     The applicants are among the heirs of Ms F., collectively inheriting about four-fifths of her estate. Ms F. had owned an afforested island in the Danube and forests in the mainland, all nationalised in 1948. After the adoption of the Forests Restitution Act in 1997, the applicants initiated restitution proceedings concerning those properties. The initial stages of the proceedings have been described in the judgment of Popov and Chonin v.   Bulgaria (no. 36094/08, §§ 9-14 and 22-26, 17 February 2015), brought by one of the current applicants. 3 .     Notably, in a decision dated 12 December 2000, the competent land commission (later renamed the Agriculture Department) recognised to the heirs of Ms F. the right to compensation in lieu of restitution for 93.38   hectares of forestry land. Restitution in kind was not possible, as the land once owned by Ms F. was located in a frontier zone and thus classified as exclusive State property. Given that the Forests Restitution Act only allows compensation via equivalent State-owned land (see Popov and Chonin , cited above, § 27), the competent authorities spent the following years seeking to identify appropriate substitute plots. Even though a 2007 court judgment identified one such plot and ordered its transfer to the applicants, the judgment was ultimately deemed unenforceable as the land in question formed part of a national park (ibid., §§ 22-24). 4.     The parties have informed the Court of the following developments since the Popov and Chonin judgment: 5 .     In a series of decisions issued in 2013 and 2018 the Agriculture Departments in Montana and Berkovitsa allocated forestry land totalling about 59 hectares to the applicants. These decisions were served on Mr   Chonin, who acted as a representative of all applicants, in 2018. He challenged the decisions, arguing that the quality of the forests was inferior to that of Ms F.’s original forests. Nevertheless, the decisions were upheld in final court judgments given in 2023 and 2024. 6 .     An additional plot of land of about 5.3 hectares has been identified, but the process of officially allocating it to the applicants remains ongoing. The competent authorities are still working to locate further plots to compensate the applicants for the remaining about 29 hectares of forestry land. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the restitution procedure was too lengthy. Admissibility 8.     The Government submitted that the application was inadmissible ratione materiae under the Convention, as it related to the enforcement of the Popov and Chonin judgment (cited above), where the Court had already found a violation of the Convention concerning the same restitution procedure. In response, the applicants contended that the present application referred to a different time period. 9.     The Court observes that, indeed, it has held that it lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine whether a Contracting Party has complied with the obligations imposed on it by one of the Court’s judgments. Complaints of a failure either to execute a judgment of the Court or to redress a violation already found by the Court fall outside its competence ratione materiae (see, among other authorities, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 34, ECHR 2015). 10.     However, the Court has acknowledged its competence to examine complaints that raise a new issue not addressed in a previous judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no.   32772/02, § 63, ECHR 2009), or relate to a new period of a continuing situations (see Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) , no. 64387/14, § 36, 7 December 2021). 11.     As concerns the present case, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe continues monitoring the execution of the Popov and Chonin judgment (most recently in document DH-DD(2024)1312). Nevertheless, the Court considers itself competent to examine the current application for two reasons. First, it refers to a new time period during which, according to the applicants, the restitution proceedings were unjustifiably delayed. Second, unlike the earlier case which concerned only Mr Chonin’s complaints (regarding the land formerly owned by Ms F.), this application is submitted by several other individuals whose grievances have not been addressed in the previous proceedings. 12.     Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the application’s compatibility ratione materiae . 13.     The Court notes in addition that the application is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. merits 14.     The applicants argued that they had not caused any delays in the restitution proceedings, and that the completion of these proceedings was in the exclusive competence of the State authorities. They contended that the restitution procedure had already lasted too long, and that there were “no prospects” of it being concluded within a reasonable time-frame. 15 .     The Government, for their part, argued that the competent authorities had been “actively and diligently engaged” in order to find a solution. They contended that the applicants had been responsible for some of the delays in the procedure, seeing in particular that the authorities had been unable to serve on Mr Chonin some of their compensation decisions until 2018, and he had challenged those decisions before the courts (see paragraph 5 above). 16.     The Court observes that the applicants’ legitimate expectation to compensation in lieu of restitution arose in 2000, when the competent land commission issued a decision in that sense (see paragraph 3 above). As of the parties latest submissions dated May 2025, the compensation procedure had not yet been completed (see paragraph 6 above). 17.     In Popov and Chonin (cited above, §§ 43-53), the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to one of the applicants, considering that the restitution proceedings had been unjustifiably delayed between 2000 and 2015. It took issue with the manner in which the authorities had processed the case, considering that they had not acted with the necessary diligence and determination to resolve the situation, and noting that they had on occasions given incoherent decisions. The Court referred also to the inflexible legislation on the restitution of forests, which did not envisage alternative means to complete the procedure, even where, as in the present case, finding suitable State-owned plots of land to offer as compensation had turned out to be difficult. 18.     The Court sees no reason not to apply the findings above to the remaining applicants, who were not party to the previous proceedings. 19.     As to the period after Popov and Chonin , it appears that the competent authorities were finally acting to find appropriate solutions. The administrative decisions issued in 2013 and 2018 have entered into force, providing the applicants a part of the compensation due (see paragraph 5 above). However, the proceedings have not yet ended, as more land remains to be located and transferred to the applicants (see paragraph 6 above). 20.     The Government argued that the applicants were responsible for some of the delays after Popov and Chonin , because for several years the authorities had been unable to serve on Mr Chonin some of the compensation decisions, and eventually he had contested them before the courts (see paragraph 15 above). The Court, however, observes that the authorities are yet to identify plots of land to transfer to the applicants, and the restitution procedure is ongoing even after the compensation decisions of 2013 and 2018 were upheld by the national courts (see paragraph 6 above). The Court accordingly does not consider Mr Chonin’s actions referred to by the Government relevant for the present analysis. Even if he caused some delays, the authorities do not appear to have been prevented in the meantime from working to locate further plots to offer as compensation. As in Popov and Chonin , the Court is prepared once again to conclude that the delays stemmed to a large degree from the inflexible legislation on the restitution of forests, which in the present case gave rise to a situation necessitating much time to resolve. 21.     The Court observes lastly that it has found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in a number of previous cases concerning length of agricultural and forestry land restitution proceedings and raising similar issues (see, for example, Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria , no. 69855/01, 7 January 2010; Vasilev and Doycheva v. Bulgaria , no. 14966/04, 31 May 2012; Zikatanova and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 45806/11, 12 December 2019; Sheytanova v. Bulgaria [Committee], no. 42218/13, 1 September 2020). In view of the considerations above it sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 22.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 23 .     The applicants claimed the value of “their nationalised land”. They referred to a valuation report presented by Mr Chonin in the previous proceedings before the Court (see Popov and Chonin , cited above, § 61). They asked that the sum indicated in that report be updated to account for inflation and the increase of land prices. 24.     As concerns non-pecuniary damage, each of the applicants claimed 50,000 euros (EUR). 25 .     Lastly, as regards costs and expenses, the applicants claimed the reimbursement of around EUR 3,200 for the costs incurred in the domestic proceedings whereby they had contested the compensation decisions issued in 2013 and 2018 (see paragraph 5 above). They claimed an additional EUR   7,208 paid for their legal representation before the Court, and EUR   181 for postage and translation. The applicants presented the necessary invoices and receipts. They requested that the EUR 181 for postage and translation be transferred directly to the law firm of their legal representatives. 26.     The Government contested the claims. 27.     The Court notes that the claim in respect of pecuniary damage (see paragraph 23 above) has not been quantified; it therefore rejects it (see, for example, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 190, 23 February 2017). The Court observes in addition that in Popov and Chonin (cited above), where it found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the excessive length of the same restitution proceedings, it considered that there was no causal link between the violation found and a similar claim made by Mr   Chonin (ibid., § 65). 28.     On the other hand, the Court finds it appropriate to award jointly to all applicants EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Any tax that may be chargeable should be added to that sum. The Court observes that it already awarded Mr Chonin EUR 2,500 under the same head in the previous application concerning the same domestic proceedings (see Popov and Chonin , cited above, § 69). 29.     Next, the Court dismisses the claims for the reimbursement of the costs in the domestic proceedings (see paragraph 25 above). These costs related to attempts by the applicants to contest the specific plots of land allocated to them in compensation, and were not directly linked to the violation of their rights found in the case, namely excessive length of the restitution proceedings. 30.     Lastly, as concerns the current proceedings, having regard to the circumstances of the case and in particular its repetitive character, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 2,500 for the applicants’ legal representation, and EUR 181 paid for postage and translation. To these should be added any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. As requested (see paragraph 25 above in fine ), the sum of EUR 181 is to be transferred directly to the law firm of the applicants’ legal representatives. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay jointly to all applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)   EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)   EUR 2,681 (two thousand six hundred and eighty-one euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, EUR 181 (one hundred and eighty-one euros) of which to be paid directly to the law firm of the applicants’ legal representatives; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 September 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Olga Chernishova   Peeter Roosma   Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applicants: No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Veselin Arahangelov CHONIN 1953 Bulgarian Sofia 2. Mihail Angelov ANGELOV 1951 Bulgarian Sofia 3. Krasimira Natsolova BOSILKOVA 1934 Bulgarian Sofia 4. Mirela Georgieva FILIPOVA 1976 Bulgarian Sofia 5. Stanislava Georgieva FILIPOVA-MARKOVA 1970 Bulgarian Sofia 6. Hristo Gueorguiev HRISTOV 1964 Bulgarian, German Leipzig 7. Angel Ivaylov MAVRODINOV 1973 Belgian, Bulgarian Sofia 8. Bogdan Ivaylov MAVRODINOV 1960 Bulgarian Kardzhali 9. Snezhina Natsolova STANKOVICH 1940 Bulgarian Sofia 10. Eli Georgieva VUCHKOVA 1966 Bulgarian Sofia