CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 March 2024   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 43914/21 and 59568/21 Petar Ivanov VASILEV and Others against Bulgaria and Rashko Levchov PESHEV against Bulgaria lodged on 25 August 2021 and 6 December 2021 respectively communicated on 7 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the duration of restitution proceedings under the Agricultural Land Act. In application no. 43914/21, in decisions dated 12 October 1992 and 19   November 2007 the competent administrative body acknowledged the applicants’ entitlement to compensation in lieu of restitution in kind for 7,221 square metres of land in the vicinity of Plovdiv. Compensation under the Agricultural Land Act can be in the form of equivalent municipally-owned land or compensation bonds, and the applicants stated that they preferred land. However, by the time when the application was lodged with the Court the compensation procedure had not yet been completed. The situation was apparently due to difficulties in identifying land available for compensation, and to disagreements in that regard between the different State and municipal bodies involved. In application no. 59568/21 the applicant is among the heirs (with one-quarter share) of Ms G.K. In a decision of 23 June 1997 the competent body acknowledged the heirs’ entitlement to compensation with regard to a plot of land of 3,407 square metres which was not subject to restitution in kind, and which is currently situated on the territory of Sofia. By the time when the application was lodged with the Court the compensation procedure had not yet been completed. According to written explanations given to the applicant by the Ministry of Agriculture, the delay was due to difficulties in identifying appropriate land, seeing the development of the city in the meantime, and to the need to accommodate the needs of different interested parties. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the excessive duration of the restitution procedures. The applicants in application no.   43914/21 complain in addition under Article 13 of the Convention of the unavailability of effective domestic remedies in that regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Are the restitution procedures involving the applicants excessively lengthy, and does this amount to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among others, Zikatanova and Others v. Bulgaria , no.   45806/11, 12   December 2019, and Sheytanova v. Bulgaria [Committee], no.   42218/13, 1   September 2020)? 2.     In application no. 43914/21, do 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?