CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s9A052872 { width:96.88%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; 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 } .s15E04B41 { width:32.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s73886E1F { width:15.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s218DAFC1 { width:21.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA9284E70 { width:23.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s12AEC686 { width:32.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC1536F8 { width:15.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62EB4AA { width:21.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s361C2499 { width:23.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 4 November 2020 Published on 23 November 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 51081/17 Bogdan Zhelev BOGDANOV and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 11 July 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms S. Margaritova-Vuchkova, a lawyer practicing in Sofia. 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 agricultural land in the region of Nesebar, which was collectivised in the 1950s. After the enactment of restitution legislation in the 1990s, in a final judgment of 16 July 2001 the Nesebar District Court acknowledged the applicants’ entitlement to the restitution of a plot of land measuring 14,000 square metres. Subsequently, in a decision dated 3 May 2004 the administrative body in charge of the restitution of agricultural land, the local agriculture department, specified that the applicants were entitled to restitution in kind. It issued the requisite cadastral plans and the applicants obtained a notarial deed. However, the applicants were unable to assume the possession of the plot, since it was part of a sports complex used and managed by a State university, the National Sports Academy. The complex had been constructed around 1975 and its land had been registered as State property. In the following years the applicants were involved in a series of judicial proceedings with the National Sports Academy, with the latter being eventually successful in refuting the applicants’ entitlement to restitution in kind. In a judgment of 30 July 2015 the Burgas Regional Court, relying on section 10b of the Agricultural Land Act, found that such restitution had not been permissible, since the land had been taken for a “complex of construction works”. That judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 16   January 2017 when the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to accept the case for cassation review. Subsequently the agriculture department held that the applicants were entitled to compensation in lieu of restitution in kind. The applicants contested that decision. At the time of the latest communication from them to the Court, July 2017, the proceedings were still pending. Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria (no. 30383/03, §§ 29-44 and 57-60, 15 November 2011) and Zikatanova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 45806/11, §§ 47-59, 12   December 2019). COMPLAINTs The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the lengthy duration of the restitution proceedings and the uncertainty as to the scope of their restitution entitlement, and under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of effective remedies in that respect.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the restitution proceedings initiated by the applicants excessively lengthy? Were the applicants placed in a situation of lengthy uncertainty as to the scope of their restitution entitlement? Does this amount to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Sivova and Koleva v.   Bulgaria , §§ 115-19, no. 30383/03, 15 November 2011; Karaivanova and Mileva v. Bulgaria , no. 37857/05, §§ 79-82, 17 June 2014; Ilieva and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 17705/05, §§ 54-57, 3 February 2015)?   2.     Was there in addition a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Vasilev and Doycheva v. Bulgaria , no. 14966/04, §§ 57-61, 31 May 2012)?   The parties are requested to provide information on the course of the proceedings after the lodging of the application.         APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Bogdan Zhelev BOGDANOV 1925 Bulgarian Burgas 2 Radka Zheleva DIMITROVA 1928 Bulgarian Burgas 3 Marina Zheleva SAGAEVA 1922 Bulgarian Nesebar 4 Maria Hristova TONCHEVA 1954 Bulgarian Burgas