CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sC0FD8C42 { width:119.62%; border-collapse:collapse } .s9D0FDE35 { width:8.06%; 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 } .s83F8C330 { width:30.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s89854C45 { width:19.36%; 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 } .s6DDCFCF1 { width:22.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB56AB144 { width:8.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FC7E70F { width:30.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2810C127 { width:19.36%; 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 } .s7DFB8471 { width:22.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 6 February 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 9252/19 Lyuben Nikolov TOSHKOV and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 23 January 2019 communicated on 16 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns restitution under the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”). The applicants claimed 9,900 square metres of land in proximity to Sofia, previously owned by a predecessor of theirs. The land was not subject to restitution in kind, since it had been constructed upon after its collectivisation, and in decisions taken in 1993, 1995 and 2000 the competent local body acknowledged the applicants’ entitlement to compensation in lieu of restitution. However, the applicants had not received any compensation by the time of their latest communication to the Court in November 2022. The competent bodies explained to them that the collection and assessment of data concerning people entitled to compensation under the ALA on the territory of the Sofia Municipality, as well as the identification of available State- and municipally-owned land to be provided in such compensation, were under way. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the excessive duration of the restitution procedure, and under Article 13 of the Convention of the unavailability of effective domestic remedies in that regard.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the duration of the restitution procedure in the applicants’ case excessive, and did this amount to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among others, 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)?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? APPENDIX List of applicants: No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Lyuben Nikolov TOSHKOV 1950 Bulgarian Sofia 2. Nikolay Dimitrov TOSHKOV 1971 Bulgarian Elin Pelin 3. Afrodita Hristos TOSHKOVA 1952 Bulgarian Elin Pelin 4. Hristina Dimitrova TOSHKOVA 1977 Bulgarian Sofia