CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s86AD8296 { width:106.78%; border-collapse:collapse } .s47B46F7 { width:8.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE236B4FF { width:43.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC9BDEB2D { width:10.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s73140775 { width:19.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s32C319F3 { width:17.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4E42D546 { width:8.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8B63096A { width:43.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB315D5A3 { width:10.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s128BF3CD { width:19.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE9C1C242 { width:17.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 4 February 2020 Published on 24 February 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 53274/13 Ekaterina Petrova GELKOVA and others against Bulgaria lodged on 17 August 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. After the lodging of the application some of the applicants passed away and their heirs, as also set out in the appendix, expressed the wish to continue the proceedings. The applicants, respectively their heirs, were represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev, Ms G. Chernicherska and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practicing in Plovdiv. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. An ancestor of the applicants owned a plot of agricultural land measuring 3,786 square metres in the outskirts of Sofia. The land was collectivised in the 1950s. In the beginning of the 1990s the applicants applied for restitution. In a decision of 22 December 1992 the local land commission recognised their entitlement in that regard. After that, since the land had in the meantime been included in the urban territory of Sofia, the local municipality had to indicate which parts had been constructed upon and which had not. Its decision in that regard, given in 2007, became final in 2009. On that basis, in a new decision dated 27 April 2010 the local Agricultural Department (former land commission) held that the applicants were entitled to the restitution in kind of 733 square metres of the plot, and to compensation for the remainder. The value of the compensation was set in a decision of the Agricultural Department of 2 June 2010. After the applicants sought judicial review, that decision became final on 18 February 2013. The applicants have not informed the Court of any developments related to the award of compensation after that date. In 2017 they stated that they had not received the compensation due. As to the part of their plot in respect of which the Agricultural Department had ordered restitution in kind, in 2012 the applicants obtained a notarial deed. Since, however, the land was being held and used by a company which had acquired it in 2005, in 2013 the applicants brought rei vindicatio proceedings. Their action was dismissed on 3 November 2017 by the Sofia District Court, which found that the land at issue had been taken by a “complex of construction works”, namely a parking, and that pursuant to section 10b of the Agricultural Land Act it was not subject to restitution. The applicants have not informed the Court of the course of the proceedings after that. Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in Bratanova v.   Bulgaria (no. 44497/06, § 23, 9 June 2015) and Zikatanova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 45806/11, §§ 46-59, 12 December 2019). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, relying in addition on Article 13 of the Convention, about the excessive duration of the restitution proceedings and the prolonged uncertainty as to the scope of their restitution rights. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Is the duration the restitution proceedings initiated by the applicants in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (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)? The parties are requested to provide information on the current state of the proceedings.       APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Ekaterina Petrova GELKOVA Passed away on 26 June 2017, inherited by Vioileta Vasileva Raleva 1934 Bulgarian Sofia 2 Desislava Traykova KIRILOVA 1980 Bulgarian Sofia 3 Lilyana Boyanova PETKOVA 1949 Bulgarian Sofia 4 Aleksandra Petrova STOYCHEVA Declared dead in absentia on 16   October 2014, inherited by Yonka Stoycheva Hristova 1931 Bulgarian Sofia 5 Elena Petrova VANEVA 1975 Bulgarian Sofia