CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } .sC1A87EE6 { width:109.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA4065904 { width:7.06%; 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 } .s71BA0C2E { width:38.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDA068C08 { width:19.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF39BD3B6 { width:19.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2CD56F3C { width:15.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E745F0A { width:7.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s69E3C191 { width:38.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DE4A319 { width:19.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s79FC6FD3 { width:19.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27ED8330 { width:15.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 28 October 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 2266/21 Galina Kirilova STOYANOVA and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 23 December 2020 communicated on 8 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application is of the type examined in Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria (no. 30383/03, 15 November 2011) and the follow-up cases, and concerns lengthy uncertainty in the restitution process about the scope of the applicants’ restitution rights. In 1995 the applicants obtained a decision of the relevant administrative body on the restitution of a plot of land in Karlovo. Since parts of the plot were taken by farm buildings, and the buildings were being held and used by a private farming cooperative, in 1996 the applicants brought rei vindicatio proceedings against it. In a final judgment of 8 August 2001, the Plovdiv Regional Court ruled in their favour, noting in particular that the restitution had been valid and that the applicants, as the owners of the land, had also become the owners of the buildings. Despite the above developments, in 2009-10 the cooperative sold the buildings to private parties. After that, in 2010 the land adjoining the buildings was declared State property, on the basis of a legislative provision stipulating that land adjoining farm buildings owned by the previously existing State farming cooperatives, and not subject to restitution in kind, would pass to the State. In 2010 ‑ 11 the State sold to the same third parties the adjoining land, separated into two plots measuring respectively 291 and 623 square metres. In 2017 and 2019 those third parties brought against the applicants (in one of the cases also against a person having bought parts of their land) actions for judicial declarations that they were the rightful owners of the two plots. By that point, the applicants (respectively the person having bought from them) had apparently never possessed and used the land. In two sets of civil proceedings ending with decisions of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 25 June 2020 and 4 November 2021 the domestic courts ruled against the applicants. They held in particular that the applicants had not been entitled to restitution, since the land had not been agricultural and had been constructed upon, and that they were competent to perform an indirect judicial review of the 1995 restitution decision, which had been invalid. The third parties had accordingly lawfully bought the land from the State. The applicants do not explain whether after the above developments they have sought to receive compensation in lieu of restitution in kind, as entitled in principle under domestic law. They complain, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 6 §   1 and 13 of the Convention, of the lengthy uncertainty as to the scope of their restitution rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, seeing the lengthy period of time it took in the domestic procedures to establish that the applicants were not entitled to restitution in kind? Do this lengthy period of uncertainty, and the applicants having to participate in several sets of proceedings to establish the scope of their restitution rights, mean that the applicants had to bear an excessive individual burden (see, among others, Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria , no. 30383/03, §§ 115-19, 15 November 2011, and Karaivanova and Mileva v. Bulgaria , no. 37857/05, §§ 79-82, 17 June 2014)?     APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Galina Kirilova STOYANOVA 1946 Bulgarian Karlovo 2. Tota Petkova BAKARDZHIEVA   Passed away on 27 February 2024 and was inherited by the two other applicants, who stated that they wished to pursue the application in her stead 1925 Bulgarian   3. Tatyana Kirilova PETROVA 1950 Bulgarian Karlovo