FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 36740/06 Ilko Borisov PETROV against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 July 2013 as a Chamber composed of:

Ineta Ziemele , President, Päivi Hirvelä , George Nicolaou , Ledi Bianku , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , Faris Vehabović , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2006,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Ilko Borisov Petrov , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Silistra .

2. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Nikolova, and then by Ms M. Kotseva , of the Ministry of Justice.

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The applicant ’ s father owned forestry land in the area around the village of Kalipetrovo , Silistra district. The land was expropriated after 1945.

4. After the adoption of the Forests Restitution Act in 1997, on 27 October 1999 the applicant requested to have his property rights to 60,000 square metres of forestry land restored. As he did not possess any documents establishing his father ’ s title, the request was examined under section 14 of the Act (see paragraphs 16-17 below).

5. In a decision of 9 August 2000 the regional commission provided for in section 14 of the Forests Restitution Act recognised the applicant ’ s right to the restitution of the plot he claimed.

6. It emerged however that in 1998 the land had already been allocated to another person in the framework of the restitution of agricultural land, which had started in 1991. It appears that it was in particular for that reason that the local land commission did not adopt a formal decision for restitution within the time-limit provided for under the Forests Restitution Act (see paragraph 17 below).

7. In 2002-2003 the applicant attempted to challenge before the courts the failure to act of the land commission (since 2002 replaced by an Agriculture and Forestry Department), but his action was found to be inadmissible.

8. In 2005 a working group with the participation of representatives of the Agriculture and Forestry Department, the State forest authorities and the authorities responsible for keeping the land cadastre was created, with the aim of examining the possible solutions. It decided that the best solution in the situation would be to allot to the applicant a different plot of land.

9. On 24 June 2005 the Agriculture and Forestry Department issued two decisions concerning the applicant ’ s land. In the first one it refused to restore his rights to the plot in Kalipetrovo , noting that it had become agricultural land and that the applicant was to receive other land in compensation. In the second decision the Department allocated to the applicant a plot of 60,000 square metres, situated in the area of a neighbouring village. Apparently, it was not possible to allot to him land in the area of Kalipetrovo , because all available forestry land there was situated in a protected territory.

10. In accordance with the Forests Restitution Act, the two decisions of 26 June 2005 were final and not subject to judicial review. The applicant was informed of them on 12 July 2005.

11. A former transfer of possession of the plot allotted to the applicant was scheduled for 11 July 2005. However, it could not be carried out because the applicant was not present. It is unclear whether he had been duly informed of it. It appears that no further attempts to organise a transfer of possession were undertaken.

12. After 2000 the applicant wrote numerous requests to different State and municipal bodies, insisting that he should receive his father ’ s old plot, in accordance with the regional commission ’ s decision of 9 August 2000, complaining of the delays in the procedure and, after 2005, contesting the legality of the Agriculture and Forestry Department ’ s decisions providing him with another plot.

13. In 2006 the applicant requested the institution of criminal proceedings against officials of the Agriculture and Forestry Department, considering that they had committed abuse of office. The prosecuting authorities refused to open criminal proceedings.

B. Relevant domestic law

14. The Restitution of Ownership to Forests and Forestry Land Act, adopted in 1997 ( Закон за възстановяване на собствеността върху горите и земите от горския фонд , “the Forests Restitution Act”), provided that persons, or their heirs, whose forestry land had been nationalised after 1944 could request restoration of their ownership rights under certain conditions. Initially, the bodies competent to take decisions for restitution were the local land commissions, which in 2002 were replaced by Agriculture and Forestry Departments.

15. Former owners of forestry land wishing to have their property rights restored had to file requests for restitution, accompanied by documents establishing their title before the nationalisation (section 13 of the Forests Restitution Act).

16. Where the former owners did not possess such documents they could still apply for restitution. Their requests were examined under a special procedure provided for in section 14 of the Forests Restitution Act.

17. Section 14 provides for the creation of regional commissions, composed of representatives of the local judicial and administrative authorities, with the task of carrying out an inquiry to verify the circumstances of the restitution claims. Where the commission was satisfied that those claims were well-founded, it was to take a decision that the former owners ’ property rights should be restored. Such a decision was binding on the respective land commission/Agriculture and Forestry Department which was obliged, within six months of receipt, to issue a formal decision for restitution. The decisions of the land commissions/Agriculture and Forestry Departments taken under section 14 of the Forests Restitution Act were final and not subject to judicial review.

18. The Forests Restitution Act does not provide for a possibility of allocating owners other plots in compensation for their original ones, except in cases where the restitution of the former plots is impossible because the land is in the territory of natural reserves or is being used for the defence, mining, construction, tourism or other similar purposes (section 6 of the Act).

COMPLAINTS

19. The applicant complained, relying on Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the land commission/Agriculture and Forestry Department had refused to restore his property rights to his father ’ s former plot, although obliged to do so following the regional commission ’ s decision of 9 August 2000, and that it had prolonged unnecessarily the restitution process.

20. The applicant also complained, without relying on any specific provision of the Convention, that the prosecuting authorities had refused to open criminal proceedings against officials of the Agriculture and Forestry Department.

THE LAW

21. The applicant complained of the refusal of the land commission, later Agriculture and Forestry Department, to return to him his father ’ s former plot, and of the protraction of the restitution process .

22. The Court considers that the above complaints are most appropriately examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

23. The Government disputed the complaints and considered them inadmissible.

24. They argued, in the first place, that the applicant was not a victim of the alleged violations of his rights since he had already been allotted a plot of land. Moreover, the Government considered that the applicant had not established in a sufficient manner his entitlement to restitution, namely that his father had indeed been the owner of the plot claimed.

25. The Government considered, in the next place, that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies because he had not brought an action for damages against the State.

26. The Government were of the opinion that the complaints under examination were also time-barred, because the restitution procedure had been completed with the Agriculture and Forestry Department ’ s decisions of 24 June 2005 to allot to the applicant a plot of land and the application had been submitted to the Court more than six months later.

27. Lastly, the Government argued that the relevant authorities had applied the law correctly and had not acted in breach of the applicant ’ s rights.

28. The applicant disagreed. Without specific arguments, he disputed the Government ’ s assertion that he could have brought an action for damages against the State. As to the argument that the application was time-barred, he pointed out that he had not yet assumed possession of the plot allotted to him.

29. The applicant reiterated that the plot he had claimed had, prior to the nationalisation, been his father ’ s, referring to the regional commission ’ s decision of 9 August 2000. He contested the rights to the land of the person to whom the plot had been transferred in the framework of the process of restitution of agricultural land.

30. Apart from mentioning that his father ’ s former plot had “extras”, the applicant did not explain why he was dissatisfied with the different plot allotted to him with the Agriculture and Forestry Department ’ s second decision of 24 June 2005.

31. The Court takes note of the Government ’ s objections that the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 a re inadmissible for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies and because the applicant was not a victim of the alleged violations. However, it considers that it is not necessary to examine these objections, because the present complaints are in any event inadmissible for the reasons below.

32. The Court notes that the applicant applied for the restitution of a plot of forestry land. By two decisions of the relevant Agriculture and Forestry Department of 24 June 2005 he was refused restitution of that plot and allotted another plot in compensation (see paragraph 9 above). Even though there may exist some doubt as to whether these decisions complied with domestic law, in that it appears that following the regional commission ’ s decision of 9 August 2000 (see paragraph 5 above) the Agriculture and Forestry Department had been obliged to return to the applicant his father ’ s former land and, moreover, the Forests Restitution Act did not provide for a possibility for compensation in lieu of restitution in cases such as the applicant ’ s (see paragraphs 17-18 above), it is not the Court ’ s task to examine that matter here. For the purposes of the current analysis it suffices to note that, as provided for by domestic law, the decisions of 24 June 2005 were final and not subject to judicial review and that they determined with finality the scope of the applicant ’ s restitution rights, which were not subject to any further assessment. The applicant was informed of these decisions on 12 July 2005 (see paragraph 10 above).

33. The Court notes that the applicant does not complain of the lack of enforcement of the above decisions, but of the refusal to return to him his father ’ s former plot and the decision to allot to him another plot instead. However, the Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 affords States wide margin of appreciation to determine the scope of property restitution and does not guarantee the right to receive a particular property, or the right to a particular outcome of the restitution procedure (see, for example, Kopecký v. Slovakia ([GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX ; and Kupenova and Others v. Bulgaria ( dec. ), no. 12664/05, § 26, 7 May 2013).

34. The Court considers that, regarding the complaint that the applicant was allotted a particular plot of land, the six-month time limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention started running on 24 June 2005, the date of the decisions determining the scope of the applicant ’ s restitution rights or, at the latest, on 12 July 2005, the date on which these decisions were notified to the applicant. The present application was lodged on 11 August 2006, more than six months after these dates. It follows that the present complaint has been introduced out of time and, as proposed by the Government (see paragraph 26 above), must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

35. In the Court ’ s view, the conclusions above are also valid in respect of the complaint concerning the duration of the restitution process, as regards any delays incurred prior to 24 June 2005 and imputable to the authorities. After that date or, at the latest, after 12 July 2005, it was up to the applicant to seek the enforcement of the decisions above and bring about the completion of the restitution process (see, mutatis mutandis , Zagorchinova v. Bulgaria ( dec. ), no. 26471/06, 5 July 2012).

36. Lastly, the applicant also complained of the refusal of the prosecution authorities to open criminal proceedings against officials of the Agriculture and Forestry Department (see paragraph 20 above). However, the Convention does not guarantee, as such, the right to criminal proceedings against third parties (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004 ‑ I; Association of the victims of terrorism v. Spain ( dec. ), no. 54102/00, ECHR 2001-V; and Hadji v. Moldova , nos. 32844/07 and 41378/07 , § 23, 14 February 2012) and it has not been alleged that the refusal to open criminal proceedings touched upon any of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court by a majority

Declares the application inadmissible.

             Françoise Elens-Passos Ineta Ziemele Registrar President