FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 34669/10 Boris Yordanov HANDZHIYSKI against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights ( F if th Section ), sitting on 26 January 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Erik Møse , President, Yonko Grozev , Mārtiņš Mits , judges,

and Milan Blaško , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2010 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 October 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Boris Yordanov Handzhiyski , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1931 and lives in Blagoevgrad .

The Bulgarian Government (“the Government” ) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova , of the Ministry of Justice .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In a decision of 10 May 1993 the Blagoevgrad land commission recognised the applicant ’ s right to receive compensation through equivalent municipally-owned land in lieu of the restitution of a plot of formerly agricultural land of 1,000 square met re s . A plan of the land to be provided in compensation to former owners in the area of Blagoevgrad was adopted in December 2008. Still, by September 2013 , the date of the latest information provided to the Court, no individual decision regarding the applicant ’ s compensation had yet been taken.

The applicant complain ed that the authorities had failed to complete the restitution procedures within a reasonable period of time.

On 19 March 2015 t he application was communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, on 9 October 2015 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application.

The Government acknowledged that in the case there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and offered to the applicant a compensation of 2 ,000 euros. They stated that this sum was to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, would be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant, and would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The sum would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay the sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The Government stated that the payment of the sum above would constitute the final resolution of the case.

By a letter dated 16 November 2015 the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the amount of compensation proposed in the declaration.

The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“ for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

The Court also observes that in cert ain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

The Court has examined carefully the declaration in the present case, in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and SulwiÅ„ska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

The Court has found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the excessive delays in proceedings concerning restitution of agricultural land in a number of cases against Bulgaria (see Naydenov v. Bulgaria , no. 17353/03, 26 November 2009 ; Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria , no. 69855/01, 7 January 2010; Vasilev and Doycheva v. Bulgaria , no. 14966/04, 31 May 2012 ; Petkova and Others v. Bulgaria [Committee] , nos. 19130/04, 17694/05 and 27777/06, 25 September 2012; Ivanov v. Bulgaria [Committee] , no. 19988/06, 11 December 2012 ; Nedelcheva and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 5516/05 , 28 May 2013 ). In the case of Vasilev and Doycheva (see §§ 68-69 of the judgment) the Court pointed out that the problem was recurrent and, relying on Article 46 of the Convention, expressed the view that the Bulgarian authorities had to provide for clear time ‑ limits for the adoption and enforcement of administrative decisions necessary for the completion of the process of restitution of agricultural land.

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 February 2016 .

Milan BlaÅ¡ko Erik Møse              Deputy Registrar President