CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 15 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application nos. 64680/14 and 64695/14 BECHEVA against Bulgaria and KOSEVA AND OTHERS against Bulgaria (see list appended) The applicants are Bulgarian nationals. They are represented before the Court by Ms S. Vasileva, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. An ancestor of the applicants owned agricultural land in the Kardzhali region, which was collectivised in the 1950s. After the adoption of restitution legislation in Bulgaria in the beginning of the 1990s, the applicants applied for the restitution of a plot of 3,280 square metres, situated in an area known as Chairlak. While the competent body – the Kardzhali land commission – initially refused restitution, after the applicants applied for judicial review, in a final judgment of 17 October 1997 the Kardzhali District Court quashed the refusal and recognised the applicants’ entitlement to restitution. In a decision of 20 January 1999 the Kardzhali land commission also made such a recognition, but refused restitution in kind. It stated that, since the plot was situated within what had become an urban territory, it could only proceed with the restitution request on the basis of two documents, to be drawn up by the local municipal administration and approved by the mayor – a cadastral plan of the plot and a certificate, showing whether any part of the land had been constructed upon. Starting from 2001, on numerous occasions the applicants requested the mayor of Kardzhali to issue these documents. Each time this was refused, most notably because the administration considered it impossible to trace the exact borders of the plot which was subject to restitution. Initially, the mayor’s refusals were upheld in court. However, in a final judgment of 17   May 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the respective refusal and ordered the mayor to issue the necessary documents. It reasoned that it was the task of the mayor and his administration to identify the plot and examine its characteristics, and that domestic law provided for the procedural means for achieving that. However, at the date of the latest information available to the Court (September 2018) the cadastral plan and the certificate had not been issued and there were no relevant new developments. At that date, the restitution procedure was still pending. Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the restitution of agricultural land have been summarised in Bratanova v. Bulgaria (no.   44497/06, §§ 22-23, 9 June 2015) and Zikatanova and Others v.   Bulgaria , (no. 45806/11, §§ 47-59, 12 December 2019). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, about the lengthy delays in the restitution procedure. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, on account of the duration of the restitution procedure concerning the plot of 3,280 square metres in the Chairlak area? Has that duration been excessive, and has there therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria , no. 69855/01, 7 January 2010, and Zikatanova and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 45806/11, 12 December 2019)? Were the applicants capable of speeding up the restitution procedure, in particular by seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 17 May 2012 (see Dimitar Yanakiev v. Bulgaria (no.   2) , no. 50346/07, §§ 58-60, 31 March 2016)? What is the current situation with regard to the applicants’ entitlement to restitution, and were any decisions taken after the lodging of the present applications?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name Year of birth Place of residence Represented by   64680/14 10/09/2014 Diana Hristova BECHEVA 1936 Kardzhali S. VASILEVA   64695/14 19/09/2014 Kostadinka Hristova KOSEVA 1931 Kardzhali   Daniela Boyanova IVANOVA 1954 Sofia   Silvia Boyanova RADEVA 1957 Samokov   Kiril Hristov GERDZHIKOV 1932 Sofia S. VASILEVA