CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 2 February 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34876/23 Ognyan Dimitrov YONCHEV against Bulgaria lodged on 9 September 2023 communicated on 15 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the taking of the applicant’s land to satisfy restitution claims brought by another party. It raises issues similar to those examined in Tomov and Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 50506/09, 21 July 2016) and Krasteva and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 5334/11, 1 June 2017). In 1970 the applicant’s parents bought from the local agricultural cooperative a plot of land in the outskirts of Sofia. The land had previously been collectivised. Following the adoption of restitution legislation in the 1990s, the heirs of the pre-collectivisation owners brought restitution proceedings. In 2010 they obtained a decision restoring their rights to a larger plot of land, including 318 square metres of the applicant’s property. In 2015, the heirs brought a rei vindicatio action against the applicant. The national courts upheld their claim, with the Supreme Court of Cassation giving a final decision on 10 May 2023. While the courts acknowledged that the applicant’s parents had validly acquired the land in 1970, they held that the restitution legislation gave precedence to the claims of the previous owners (for an overview of that legislation, see Tomov and Nikolova , cited above, §§ 13-19). The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, relying in addition on Article 13 of the Convention, that he was deprived of his property without compensation and in breach of the requirements of legal certainty.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been deprived of his property in breach of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Tomov and Nikolova v.   Bulgaria , no. 50506/09, 21 July 2016, and Krasteva and Others v.   Bulgaria , no. 5334/11, 1 June 2017)?