FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 29886/06 Atanaska Stoilova LAMBREVA and others against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 May 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Päivi Hirvelä , President, Ledi Bianku , Paul Mahoney , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 July 2006,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 11 February 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants, Ms Atanaska Stoil ova Lambreva, Ms Petra Stoilova Mavrodieva, Mr Rang el Stoilov Kostov and Mr Georgi Stoilov Stoilov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1927, 1931, 1932 and 1937 respectively.

Ms Atanaska Stoilova Lambreva, Ms Petra Stoilova Mavrodieva and Mr Rangel Stoilov Kostov live in the village of Yagodovo.

Mr Georgi Stoilov Stoilov passed away on 13 November 2006. In a letter dated 17 September 2012 his heirs, Ms Yordanka Georgieva Stoilova, Mr Ivan Georgiev Stoilov, Mr Dimitar Georgiev Stoilov and Mr Stoil Georgiev Stoilov, expressed their wish to continue the procedure in his stead.

The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.

The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Obretenov, of the Ministry of Justice.

The part of the application concerning the delays and the insecurity in the restitution procedure has been communicated to the Government.

The applicants ’ father owned several plots of land which were taken away from him in the process of collectivisation of agricultural land after 1945.

Following the adoption of the 1991 Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”), in 1992 the applicants requested the restitution of the land, including, inter alia , of a plot of 4,400 square metres, which had in the meantime been included in the industrial zone of Plovdiv and buildings had been constructed on it. On 20 April 1995 the Plovdiv agricultural land commission refused restitution of this plot.

Upon an appeal by the applicants, in a final judgment of 8 August 1997 the Plovdiv District Court quashed the decision of 20 April 1995 and ordered the restitution of the plot in its “actual boundaries”.

Following that judgment, the applicants attempted to enter into possession of the plot but were unsuccessful because the land was being held and used by the company Ongal AD, a former municipal enterprise which had, apparently in 1993, been transformed into a limited-liability company and was subsequently privatised.

After the failure of their efforts to assume possession of the plot between 1997 and 2001, on 6 July 2001 the applicants brought a rei vindicatio action against the company.

In a judgment of 18 December 2003 the Plovdiv District Court dismissed the action. It held that Ongal AD was not bound by the judgment of 8 August 1997 as it had not participated in the restitution proceedings. Applying section 10b of the ALA, the domestic court held further that the applicants had not been entitled to restitution in “actual boundaries”, because the plot claimed by them had been constructed upon.

Upon an appeal by the applicants, on 21 July 2004 and 21 February 2006 respectively the above judgment was upheld by the Plovdiv Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation.

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning restitution of agricultural land and compensation in lieu thereof have been summarised in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria , no. 30383/03, §§ 29-54 and 57-60, 15 November 2011 .

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that after many years of litigation and of insecurity as to the scope of their restitution rights they had eventually been unable to obtain the restitution “in actual boundaries” of their land, and that this had been so despite the Plovdiv District Court ’ s judgment of 8 August 1997 in their favour.

2. The applicants also complained, relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, that the 2001-2006 rei vindicatio proceedings had been too lengthy and that they had not had at their disposal effective remedies in that regard.

THE LAW

1. The applicants complained, first, of the lengthy duration of the restitution process and the situation of insecurity they had been placed in.

After the failure of the attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 11 February 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They acknowledged that the delays in the restitution procedure and the lack of legal certainty amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and offered to each of the four applicants a compensation of 2,000 euros (EUR), or EUR 8,000 in total.

The Government invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. They suggested that the declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court ’ s list, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

The declaration also provided that the sum offered in compensation was to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, would be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicants, and would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The sum above 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.

By a letter of 29 March 2013, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. They considered that the amount offered in compensation was insufficient and that such low compensation would not serve as a deterrent to future similar violations.

The Court recalls 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 parag raph 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 recalls that in certain 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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine the declaration 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).

The Court has found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by reason of the excessive delays and the lack of legal certainty in proceedings concerning restitution of agricultural land in a number of cases against Bulgaria (see Sivova and Koleva , cited above; Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria , no. 69855/01 , 7 January 2010; Naydenov v. Bulgaria , no. 17353/03, 26 November 2009; Vasilev and Doycheva v. Bulgaria , no. 14966/04 , 31 May 2012; Petkova and Others , nos. 19130/04, 17694/05 and 27777/06, 25 September 2012; and Ivanov v. Bulgaria , no. 19988/06, 11 December 2012). 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) of the Convention).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given its 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 ).

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 (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

Finally, the Court notes that the sum off ered to the applicant Mr Georgi Stoilov Stoilov should be paid to his heirs.

2. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Articl e 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants also complained that they had been unable to obtain the restitution of the plot they had claimed, despite the judgment of the Plovdiv District Court in their favour.

Lastly, they complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, that the 2001-2006 rei vindicatio proceedings had been too lengthy and that they had not had effective remedies in that regard.

Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, to its case-law and in particular its findings in the similar case of Sivova and Koleva , cited above, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the complaint of excessive length and insecurity in the restitution procedure, and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Fatoş Aracı Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar President