CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 novembre 2020

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s38227D46 { width:115.6%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD52EC1FA { width:6.56%; 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 } .s69F8F77C { width:38.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sACEEFC4 { width:16.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDDF3F815 { width:19.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB0B429E6 { width:19.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC9DC8A30 { width:6.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68B0CD4C { width:38.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCD7A2548 { width:16.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAC681714 { width:19.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7B7F317C { width:19.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 11 November 2020 Published on 30 November 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 43917/17 Temenuzhka Kochova STOILKOVA and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 15 June 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants’ father owned agricultural land in the area of Blagoevgrad, which was collectivised in the 1950s. In the 1980s 27,000 square metres of land in the area, including the applicants’ father’s land, was earmarked for the construction of an industrial plant and was allocated for use and management to a State-owned enterprise. In the 1990s the enterprise was transformed into a State-owned company named I., which was privatised in 2001. In 1991, following the adoption of restitution legislation, the applicants applied for the restitution of their father’s land. The request was allowed in a decision of the Blagoevgrad land commission of 18 April 2002, which noted that the land had not been taken by the plant. It thus ordered the restitution in kind of a plot measuring 1,484 square metres. The decision was accompanied by a cadastral plan of the plot and, on its basis, the applicants obtained a notarial deed in 2003. However, it appears that the applicants never assumed possession of their plot, through which a road was passing. In 2011 company I. brought proceedings, seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that the plot of land restituted to the applicants was in fact its property. The action was allowed in a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 16 December 2016. The domestic courts found that company I. had become the owner of the land allocated to the former enterprise at the time of its transformation, on the strength of section 17a of and the Transformation and Privatisation of State and Municipally ‑ Owned Enterprises Act, and that the restitution of the plot in 2002 had not been permissible. The applicants have not informed the Court whether, following the above developments, they have sought to receive compensation in lieu of restitution. Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria (no. 30383/03, §§ 30-54, 15 November 2011) and Zikatanova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 45806/11, §§ 47-59, 12   December 2019). COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the restitution procedure initiated by them was overly lengthy. They contend in addition that the legislative approach, providing for the restitution of formerly collectivised land and at the same time according rights to the same land to State-owned enterprises and companies, rendered the realisation of their restitution rights uncertain and unforeseeable. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Were the restitution proceedings initiated by the applicants excessively lengthy? Were the applicants placed in a situation of lengthy uncertainty as to the scope of their restitution entitlement? Does this amount to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria , §§ 115-19, no. 30383/03, 15 November 2011; Karaivanova and Mileva v. Bulgaria , no.   37857/05, §§ 79-82, 17 June 2014; Ilieva and Others v. Bulgaria , no.   17705/05, §§ 54-57, 3 February 2015)?   The parties are requested to provide information on the course of the proceedings after the lodging of the application, in particular as to whether the applicants sought compensation in lieu of restitution.       APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Temenuzhka Kochova STOILKOVA The applicant passed away on 27 August 2018; her daughter Vesela Georgieva NIKOLOVA expressed the wish to pursue the application. 1935 Bulgarian   2 Violeta Kochova GANCHEVA 1932 Bulgarian Sofia 3 Siyka Kocheva PEHLIVANOVA 1939 Bulgarian Sofia