Communicated on 2 October 2020 Published on 19 October 2020

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 14642/15 Veselin Nikolov DIMOV against Bulgaria lodged on 18 March 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Veselin Nikolov Dimov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1962 and lives in the village of Zhelyo Voyvoda .

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

The applicant is one of the heirs of Y. The latter owned agricultural land measuring about 150,000 square metres, which was collectivised in the 1950s.

In 1991-92 some of the heirs of Y. (“the first group”) applied for restitution. In several decisions the Sliven land commission allowed their applications, holding that the land was to be restored through a land redistribution plan. Such a plan for the respective area was adopted in 1995, and in 1995-97 the first group of heirs entered into possession of the plots allotted to them. Subsequently they transferred some of these plots to third parties.

In 1997 the remaining heirs of Y., including the applicant ’ s father (who passed away in 2012 and was succeeded by the applicant and his mother), brought proceedings against the first group, under section 14(4) of the Agricultural Land Act, claiming that the land should have been restituted to all heirs. Their action was partially allowed – as regards all but two plots of land totalling 4,000 square metres – in a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 27 September 2002.

In 2003 the Sliven Agricultural Department (former land commission, hereinafter “the Department”) informed the applicant ’ s father that it was unable to comply with the above mentioned final judgment, because it was unable to identify, on the basis of the holdings of the national courts, the two plots meant to remain the property of the first group. The reason was that the group had been allotted, by means of the land redistribution plan, plots with sizes and locations differing from the ones originally owned. The Department thus advised all heirs of Y. to reach an agreement on the matter.

The same need to reach an agreement was invoked in a decision of the Department given on 16 July 2008. However, on 9 July 2009 that decision was declared null and void by the Sliven District Court, on the ground that the Department could not validly refuse to comply with a final court judgment.

Subsequently the applicant complained to the national Ombudsman who, in a letter dated 12 November 2013, informed the applicant that he considered the Department obliged to comply with the final court judgment of 27 September 2002. He considered furthermore that the Department was authorised to select itself the plots to remain property of the first group, seeing that Y. ’ s heirs were unable to reach an agreement. He recommended to the Department to take the necessary measures to complete the restitution procedure.

In 2013 the applicant also sought an administrative punishment for the head of the Department, in relation to the latter ’ s refusal to comply with the judgment of 27 September 2002. In a decision of 19 December 2014 the president of the Sliven District Court refused to impose such a punishment, finding, for his part, that the Department was unable to comply with the judgment without a prior agreement among the heirs of Y.

The Department took a decision, restoring the property rights of all heirs of Y. to the land at issue, on 24 October 2016. That decision entered into force in July 2017. It was not preceded by an agreement among the heirs of Y.

However, the decision above was not accompanied by the requisite cadastral plans of all plots concerned. In November 2017 the Agricultural Department informed the applicant about difficulties preventing it from issuing some of these plans, which apparently stemmed from some of the plots having been transferred to third persons. According to the applicant, some plots have already been acquired by other persons through adverse possession.

In 2019 the applicant initiated partition proceedings against other heirs of Y. In accordance with his inheritance share, he claims land totalling 6,000 square metres.

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning restitution of agricultural land have been summarised in Velcheva v. Bulgaria (no. 35355/08 , §§ 18-19, 9 June 2015) and Zikatanova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 45806/11, §§ 47-59, 12 December 2019).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention that the restitution procedure was not completed for many years, despite the final judgment of 27 September 2002 acknowledging his father ’ s restitution rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Are the duration of the restitution procedure since 2002 and the failure of the domestic authorities to complete it with the issuance of cadastral plans for all plots of land in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Velcheva v. Bulgaria , no. 35355/08, 9 June 2015, and Popov and Chonin v. Bulgaria , no. 36094/08, 17 February 2015)? Has there in addition been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, seeing the prolonged failure on the part of the Sliven Agricultural Department to comply with the final court judgment of 27 September 2002, and of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

What are the latest developments in the restitution procedure and, if it is not completed, what are the means to do so?