Communicated on 4 April 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 61731/11 Hristina Georgieva KAMENOVA against Bulgaria lodged on 9 September 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Hristina Georgieva Kamenova , is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Vratsa.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 1991, following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act which provided, inter alia , for the restitution of formerly collectivised land, the applicant applied for the restitution of land previously owned by her father.

In a decision of 20 May 1996 the competent body, the Oryahovo land commission, held that the heirs of the applicant ’ s father (the applicant and her sister) were entitled to the restitution of, inter alia , a plot of land of 11,800 square metres. The decision stated that the plot was “situated in an area under section 4”.

That provision (section 4 of the transitional provisions of the Agricultural Land Act, hereinafter “section 4”) concerned plots of land which had been offered by the Communist authorities for use of private persons, and stipulated that those persons ’ right of use was to be discontinued. Under further conditions, those plots were subject to restitution in favour of the pre-collectivisation owners. Such restitution was to be carried out after the elaboration of a detailed cadastral plan of the respective area and, on its basis, a so-called plan of the newly-created plots.

For the area where the applicant ’ s plot was situated, such plans were elaborated and affirmed by the relevant authorities in 2010.

In 2012, responding to a letter from the applicant, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests informed her that any decision to complete the restitution procedure was to be taken by the local municipality.

The applicant contacted the municipality in Oryahovo , which, after verifying the matter, informed her in a letter of 23 April 2013 that her plot was not situated within the boundaries of the area concerned by section 4 and covered by the 2010 plan of the newly-created plots. Thus, the municipality was not competent to take any decision to finalise the restitution procedure. It informed the applicant that her plot was considered private State property and was managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests.

After the applicant contacted once again the Ministry, it informed her, in an undated letter, that she was to address her request to the Oryahovo Agriculture Department (former land commission, a body which is the local branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests).

The applicant addressed the Agriculture Department with a request to finalise the restitution procedure and transfer to her possession of her plot. In a letter dated 21 August 2013 the Department, while confirming that the municipality had no competence as concerns this plot, explained that the applicant had had to do the following: either claim her plot in a different procedure, involving the elaboration of a so-called land redistribution plan (a means of restitution of land which is not covered by section 4; it is unclear at what moment such a plan was elaborated for the area); or apply for restitution under another piece of legislation concerning forestry land, under time-limits which had already expired.

In another letter dated 11 April 2017, replying to a further request by the applicant to finalise the restitution procedure, the Oryahovo Agriculture Department stated that its decision of 20 May 1996 indicating that the applicant ’ s plot was covered by section 4 and was to be restituted under the procedure concerning such plots was final and that the time-limits for requesting its rectification, had it contained any error, had expired.

B. Relevant domestic law

The general restitution provisions of the Agricultural Land Act have been summarised in Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 69855/01 , §§ 83-95, 7 January 2010).

The restitution procedure concerning plots under section 4 has been described in Naydenov v. Bulgaria (no. 17353/03 , §§ 21-42, 2 6 November 2009).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant, relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complains that the restitution procedure concerning her plot, already lasting more than 20 years, has not yet been finalised.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Does the applicant have a “legitimate expectation” of restitution, and thus “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on the basis of the Oryahovo land commission ’ s decision of 20 May 1996? If so, what is the scope of that “legitimate expectation”, and is the applicant entitled to the restitution in kind of the land claimed by her?

Do the authorities ’ failure to finalise the restitution procedure and the duration of that procedure breach the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? What are the possible means of finalising that procedure and is the Oryahovo Agriculture Department unjustifiably refusing to do so?