FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 28436/15 Pavel Stoilov ZANEV and Milena Pavlova TANEVA against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Iulia Antoanella Motoc, President, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges, and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 28436/15) against Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 June 2015 by two Bulgarian nationals, Mr Pavel Stoilov Zanev (“the first applicant”) and Ms Milena Pavlova Taneva (“the second applicant”, the two of them together “the applicants”), who were born in 1960 and 1965 respectively and live in Zheleznitsa, and who were represented by Ms A. Zaneva, a lawyer practising in Sofia;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms B. Simeonova, from the Ministry of Justice;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE

1 . On 12 March 2001 the applicants bought a plot of land measuring 920 square metres in the vicinity of Sofia. The land had been collectivised in the 1950s and then, in 1971, sold by the then-existing agricultural co ‑ operative to private parties. In 2000 and 2001 it was resold several times, the last time to the applicants. Parallel to that, the plot was also subject to restitution proceedings initiated by the pre-collectivisation owner. She was granted restitution in a decision of the relevant administrative body in 1995. After that she entered into possession and began using the plot.

2 . Two sets of proceedings ensued. In December 2000 the S. family, who had bought the plot one month earlier, in November 2000, brought rei vindicatio proceedings against the restitution owner. In the meantime, they sold the plot to a third person, who in turn resold it to the applicants. Shortly after buying the land and upon his request, the first applicant joined the proceedings as a third interested party. Those proceedings ended with a judgment of the Sofia City Court of 8 December 2008, which entered into force on 13 October 2010. It found that the 1995 restitution decision was valid, and that, as provided under domestic law, it had given rise to title to property in favour of the restitution owner, despite the land having been transferred to private parties. The S. family had not therefore established that they were the plot’s owners, and their rei vindicatio action had no merit.

3 . Parallel to that, in 2001 the restitution owner brought proceedings against the applicants and other people having bought the land before them, seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that she was the land’s owner. These proceedings ended on 5 January 2015, the domestic courts finding once again in favour of the restitution owner. They found in particular that: 1) the judgment of 8 December 2008 was binding on the S. family, and also on the applicants, because the first applicant had participated in the respective proceedings as a third interested party, and as the applicants had acquired the plot after the initiation of those proceedings. Article 220 § 1 of the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure, in force at the relevant time, provided that final judgments were binding not only on the parties to civil proceedings, but also on their successors; 2) nevertheless, the restitution owner retained a legitimate interest in pursuing the current proceedings, since she needed to prove the validity of her title vis-à-vis all people who had acquired the plot after 1971 and vis-à-vis their heirs; 3) the restitution decision was valid and took precedence over the other parties’ claimed titles to property.

4. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of what they considered to be unfair deprivation of property.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

5. The Government argued that the application had been submitted more than six months after the decision settling with finality the applicants’ rights, namely the Sofia City Court’s judgment of 8 December 2008, in force since 13 October 2010.

6. In that judgment the Sofia City Court established that the S. family were not the disputed land’s owners, since the restitution owner’s claim took precedence (see paragraph 2 above). Apart from the S. family, as noted by the domestic courts, that judgment was binding on the applicants: the first applicant had participated as a third interested party, and both applicants had succeeded the S. family after the initiation of the proceedings at issue.

7. It was thus in 2010, with the entry into force of the judgment of 8 December 2008, that it became res judicata between the applicants and the restitution owner that the applicants’ predecessors, the S. family, were not the land’s owners. The binding force of the judgment of 8 December 2008 has not been in dispute, nor the fact that, under the general principles of civil law, the applicants could not claim to be the land’s owners once their predecessors had been found not to be such owners. Thus, even if, hypothetically, the restitution owner had been unsuccessful in the proceedings ending in 2015 (see paragraph 3 above) in proving the validity of her own title to property, it would have already been established between her and the applicants that the latter’s claimed title was invalid.

8. On an unspecified date between the restitution decision in her favour given in 1995 and the initiation of rei vindicatio proceedings against her by the S. family in 2000 the restitution owner entered into possession of the land. It has not been disputed that this possession continued throughout the proceedings described above and has not been interrupted.

9. Thus, indeed, as suggested by the Government, the question whether the applicants were the owners of the land and could claim to obtain its possession appears to have been settled in 2010, with the entry into force of the Sofia City Court’s judgment of 8 December 2008. As mentioned, that judgment found vis-à-vis the restitution owner that the applicants’ predecessors, the S. family, were not the owners of the land. The restitution owner was in possession of the land, and the applicants, being the successors of the S. family and consequently not considered the owners of the land as well, had therefore no basis for seeking to obtain from her such possession.

10. Consequently, the “final” decision in the case for the purposes of calculating the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely the one resolving with finality the applicants’ claim to the disputed land, was indeed the one of 8 December 2008, in force since 13 October 2010 (see paragraph 2 above). Apart from the proceedings initiated by the restitution owner which ended in 2015 and which, as discussed, were not determinative of the applicants’ rights, there were no relevant subsequent developments, such as, for instance, an attempt by the applicants to have their sale contract rescinded and to recover the price they had paid. The application was lodged on 4 June 2015.

11. Accordingly, the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 December 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Ilse Freiwirth Iulia Antoanella Motoc Deputy Registrar President