Communicated on 5 July 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 45806/11 Lyubka Todorova ZIKATANOVA and others against Bulgaria lodged on 15 July 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Bulgarian nationals. A list of their names and years of birth is contained in the appendix. Some of the applicants passed away after the lodging of the application and their heirs have expressed the wish to continue the proceedings in their stead. The applicants, respectively their heirs, are represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev , Ms G. Chernicherska and Ms K. Boncheva , lawyers practicing in Plovdiv.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

Ancestors of the applicants owned agricultural land in the outskirts of Sofia, in an area named Vrazhdebna . In the 1950s the land was incorporated into an agricultural cooperative.

In 1960 the State expropriated 300,000 square metres of land used by the cooperative. The land was initially earmarked for the creation of an agricultural institute, but was eventually given for use to another organisation.

After Parliament enacted the Agricultural Land Act 1991, the applicants applied for the restitution of their ancestors ’ land. On different dates between 1994 and 2010 the competent administrative body, the local land commission (after 2008 Agricultural Department), and on some occasions the courts, allowed the applications and ordered restitution in kind. However, the restitution procedures were not completed with the requisite steps which would have given rise to property titles for the applicants, namely the issuance of plans of the respective plots and formal transfer of possession.

In the meantime, in 1993 the Minister of Agriculture allocated the land for agricultural studies. Subsequently its use was taken over by the Forestry University in Sofia.

A cadastral plan of the area adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1999 envisaged allocating about 63,000 square metres of the land at issue to the University and distributing the remainder among the persons entitled to restitution.

In 2001 the Sofia regional governor proposed to the Council of Ministers (the Government) to annul its 1960 decision concerning the expropriation of land in Vrazhdebna , which was seen as impediment for the completion of the restitution procedures. It appears however that the proposal was never scheduled for examination by the Government.

In 2008 the Minister of Education granted the Forestry University the right to use 350,000 square metres of land in Vrazhdebna and initiated a procedure for the registration of that land as public State property.

In 2010 the local Agricultural Department established that the land was being used “ineffectively” by the University and that part of it had been rented out to private parties. The Ministry of Agriculture took a decision to proceed with the restitution procedures.

However, in 2011 the Minister of Education sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture, explaining that the land was being used by the Forestry University and insisting that the restitution decisions in favour of the applicants be re-examined.

On 18 March 2014 the plot of land, with a surface of 340,959 square metres, was entered by the Sofia regional governor into the list of public State properties.

Throughout the years the applicants sent numerous complaints to different State bodies, urging them to take measures for the completion of the restitution procedures. After they found out that the land claimed by them had been registered as public State property, they wrote to the competent body, the Minister of Public Works, to ask for the cancelation of the registration.

In 2017 most of the applicants submitted to the local Agricultural Department fresh requests for restitution. The Department responded to some of them that they needed to present documents which the applicants claim they cannot obtain. With respect to other applicants, in December 2017 and January 2018 the Department issued decisions, refusing restitution in kind and stating that the persons entitled would receive compensation. The applicants appealed against these decisions. The course of the proceedings is unclear.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law concerning restitution of agricultural land has been summarised in Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 69855/01 , §§ 83-95, 7 January 2010).

The provisions concerning entries into the lists of State properties have been summarised in Sakskoburggotski and Others v. Bulgaria ( dec. ) (nos. 38948/10 and 2 others, §§ 127-29, 20 March 2018).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, relying in addition on Article 13 of the Convention, that the national authorities have not completed the restitution procedures and transferred to them their ancestors ’ land, in disregard of the administrative decisions and court judgments ordering restitution in kind.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicants ’ entitlement to restitution in kind, recognised in final administrative decisions and court judgments, amount to “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Does the national authorities ’ continued failure to comply with these decisions and judgments and finalise the restitution procedures represent an interference with the applicants ’ “possession”? Is such interference lawful and otherwise in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, are there “reasons of a substantial and compelling character”, justifying the authorities ’ failure to comply with the final decisions and judgments in the applicants ’ favour (see Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 18967/03 , §§ 129-35, 3 December 2009, and Hadzhigeorgievi v. Bulgaria , no. 41064/05, §§ 66-70, 16 July 2013 ) ? Seeing the Forestry University ’ s possible claim to the land, what are the possible means to finalise the restitution procedures?

The parties are requested to inform the Court of any new developments in the pending restitution procedures.

The applicants are in addition requested, concerning the cases of the heirs of Mr Ivan Velkov and Mr Yordan Kirov, to specify what have been the final decisions or judgments determining the scope of those heirs ’ restitution rights.

Appendix

( list of applicants)