CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 février 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 149 February 2012 Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria (Just Satisfaction) - 18967/03 Judgment 28.2.2012 [Section IV] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to introduce strict time-limits and effective remedy to address systemic problem in restitution of property cases   Facts – In a principal judgment delivered on 3   December 2009 the Court found a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, in that the authorities’ refusal to complete the restitution of their agricultural land and the delay in the restitution of some other plots of land had upset the fair balance between the general interest and the applicants’ rights and placed a disproportionate burden on them. Following the principal judgment, the authorities took steps to comply with the relevant court judgment in respect of the agricultural land, which had been the source of the violation found. They adopted a decision for the return of the agricultural land to the applicants and instructed them as to the formalities to be complied with in order to complete the restitution process. As regards the other plots of land, the restitution process still appeared to be ongoing. Law – Article 41: Provided the applicants’ cooperated with the authorities, it was reasonable to expect the restitution process to be completed within three months from the date the Court’s judgment became final. Failing the actual transfer of the land to the applicants within that time, the respondent State was to pay jointly to all the applicants the current value of the plots at issue (EUR 433,000 for the agricultural land and EUR 120,000 for the other plots) in respect of pecuniary damage. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,000. Article 46: Having received a number of other applications against Bulgaria raising a similar issue to the one in the applicants’ case, the Court noted that there might be a systemic problem in Bulgaria in this respect. It therefore ordered that certain general measures be adopted in the execution of its judgment in this case, namely that clear time-limits be set concerning the enforcement of final judgments relating to the restitution of agricultural land and that a remedy be introduced affording the persons concerned an effective means of obtaining compensation should such time-limits not be observed.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes