Communicated on 10 December 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 27565/14 Vasil Tsvetanov LAZAROV and others against Bulgaria lodged on 29 March 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

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

In 1991 L., father of the first and second applicants and husband of the third applicant, applied for the restitution of a plot of agricultural land measuring 4,000 square metres.

In 1994 the competent body, the Blagoevgrad land commission, informed him that restitution in kind was impossible since after the collectivisation the plot had been taken for a “complex of construction works”. As provided for under section 10b of the Agricultural Land Act, L. was thus entitled to compensation.

L. passed away in 1997 and was succeeded by the applicants.

The value of the compensation to be provided to the applicants was set in a decision of the land commission of 22 August 2001.

In a new decision of 25 August 2011 the Blagoevgrad Agricultural Department (former land commission, hereinafter “the Department”) allotted to the applicants a plot of land in compensation. The applicants challenged that decision, and on 29 November 2011 it was quashed by the Blagoevgrad District Court, which considered that the plot of land concerned was of a very low value. It thus remitted the case to the Department for a new decision on the compensation due to the applicants.

In a decision of 28 June 2012 the Department stated that it refused restitution in kind. The applicants challenged this decision and it was quashed on 8 January 2013 by the Blagoevgrad District Court. That court, considering that it had not been shown that the construction carried out on the plot had been lawful, ordered the restitution of the land “in actual boundaries”.

As a matter of fact, a sports complex had been constructed on that plot and on neighbouring plots in 1986. In 2002 the land and the buildings were registered as private State property and in 2006 the State transferred title to property to a private company.

The applicants have been unable to enter into possession of the plot. They have not brought proceedings against the company to defend their alleged entitlement to restitution in kind.

The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria (no. 30383/03, §§ 29-44, 15 November 2011).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the excessive length of the restitution proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has the restitution procedure initiated by the applicants ’ ancestor lasted too long, and is its duration in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria , no. 69855/01, 7 January 2010, and Popov and Chonin v. Bulgaria , no. 36094/08, 17 February 2015)?

Could the applicants bring about the completion of the procedure, in particular by contesting the 2012 failure of the Blagoevgrad Agricultural Department to award them compensation, as ordered by the Blagoevgrad District Court in its judgment of 29 November 2011? Alternatively, if the applicants were of the view that restitution in kind was feasible, could they bring proceedings against the company which is considered the owner of their land?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Birth year

Nationality

Place of residence

1Vasil Tsvetanov LAZAROV

1957Bulgarian

Blagoevgrad

2Kata Tsvetanova KOSTADINOVA

1955Bulgarian

Blagoevgrad

3Miropa Nikolova LAZAROVA

1932Bulgarian

Blagoevgrad