CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 27 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 28436/15 Pavel Stoilov ZANEV and Milena Pavlova TANEVA against Bulgaria lodged on 4 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a dispute about a plot of land measuring 920   square metres situated in the outskirts of Sofia. In the 1950s the plot had been the subject of nationalisation, and in the 1970s had been sold by the State to private parties. The applicants acquired it 2001. However, it transpired that in 1995 the plot had been the subject of restitution, and when the restitution owner brought an action against the applicants, seeking to deny their property rights, she was successful. The applicable domestic law provided for restitution in certain circumstances even where the land at issue had been transferred to third parties, and specified that those third parties could not rely on acquisitive prescription. The applicants were entitled to no compensation for their lost property. They have not brought proceedings against the person from whom they bought the plot. They complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the deprivation of the applicants of their property (see Tomov and Nikolova v.   Bulgaria , no. 50506/09, 21 July 2016, and Krasteva and Others v.   Bulgaria , no.   5334/11, 1 June 2017, with reference to Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 43278/98 and 8 others, 15 March 2007)? Could the applicants bring proceedings against the person from whom they had bought that property, and could such proceedings provide compensation reasonably related to its market value (see Todorova and   Others v. Bulgaria (just satisfaction), nos. 48380/99 and 3 others, 24   April 2008, and Petrovi v.   Bulgaria (dec.) [Committee], no. 11186/12, 25 August 2015)?