CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 août 2022

.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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s8D8D6D59 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sC1A87EE6 { width:109.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB0CB7F3F { width:7.08%; 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 } .s660E7656 { width:29.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFE98CC46 { width:17.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF4A0F4D { width:22.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1282E693 { width:23.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB4371AF0 { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s56192C94 { width:29.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1675B0A5 { width:17.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9DAD0192 { width:22.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD1108BB8 { width:23.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 12 September 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40060/18 Petar Dimitrov STOYANOV and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 16 August 2018 communicated on 22 August 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns land restitution. A plot of forestry land, former property of a legal predecessor of the applicants, was restituted to them in an administrative decision of 27 April 2001. Since part of the plot, measuring 1,484 square metres, was being held and used by a State body, in 2013, following years of unsuccessful negotiations, the applicants brought a rei   vindicatio action. In a final judgment of 2 December 2014 the Sofia Regional Court allowed the action and ordered the State body to surrender possession. The judgment was enforced in October 2020. The applicants complain, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, of the authorities’ prolonged failure to comply with the decision on restitution of 27 April 2001 and the final court judgment of 2 December 2014.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the enforcement of the final court judgment of 2 December 2014 unduly delayed and did such a delay amount to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among others, Raylyan v. Russia , no. 22000/03, 15   February 2007, and Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria , no. 34130/04, 26   November 2013)?   2.     Did the authorities’ failure for many years to comply with the decision on restitution of 27 April 2001 and the final judgment of 2 December 2014 amount to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among others, Hadzhigeorgievi v. Bulgaria , no. 41064/05, 16 July 2013, and Velcheva v.   Bulgaria , no. 35355/08, 9 June 2015)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   List of Applicants No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Petar Dimitrov STOYANOV 1928 Bulgarian Botevgrad 2. Elisaveta Petrova DIMITROVA 1952 Bulgarian Botevgrad 3. Stefan Todorov FAMPARSKI 1962 Bulgarian Botevgrad 4. Plamen Petrov STOYANOV 1958 Bulgarian Sofia