Communicated on 26 May 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 5334/11 Donka Ivanova KRASTEVA and O thers against Bulgaria lodged on 17 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Bulgarian nationals who live in Sofia. A list of the ir names and years of birth i s set out in the appendix. The applicants are represented by Ms M. Hristova , a lawyer practicing in Sofia.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 15 January 1968 the second applicant, together with ancestors of the other applicants, bought from the then existing local agricultural co ‑ operative a plot of land situated in the outskirts of Sofia measuring 953 square metres. Until 2002 the applicants, respectively their ancestors, enjoyed undisturbed possession of the land.

On 10 May 2002 a group of persons, the h eirs of Mr T.S., Mr G.S. and Ms K.S., brought against the applicants a rei vindicatio action claiming that the plot of land was theirs. They stated that the plot had been returned to them by a decision of the relevant land commission of 27 December 1999, given in the context of the process of restitution of agricultural land. They considered that the purchase of the land in 1968 by the second applicant and the remaining applicants ’ predecessors was unopposable to them, on the strength of section 10(13) of the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”, see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).

Initially, the Sofia District Court (its judgement is undated) dismissed the action against the applicants. Upon appeal, on 5 November 2009 the Sofia City Court reversed, allowed the rei vindicatio claim and ordered the applicants to surrender possession of the plot. In found in particular that the land commission ’ s decision of 27 December 1999 was sufficient to render the claimants owners of the disputed land, since the provision of section 10(13) of the ALA, in the case of conflicting claims to the same land, gave precedence to the restitution owners and had the effect of rendering the contract whereby the second applicant and the remaining applicants ’ predecessors had bought the plot devoid of any legal force.

In a final decision of 18 June 2010 the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to accept for examination the applicants ’ cassation appeal.

On an unspecified date the applicants surrendered possession of the plot.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA” Закон за собствеността и ползването на земеделските земи ) was adopted in 1991. It entitled persons, or their heirs, whose land had been collectivised , to request under certain conditions the restoration of their ownership rights .

At the time of its adoption the ALA did not expressly address situations where third parties had acquired property to formerly collectivised land. In an Interpretative Decision of 25 June 1996 ( Тълкувателно решение № 2 от 25. VI .1996 г. по гр. д. № 2/96 г., ОСГК ) the former Supreme Court found that in situations where the buyers had acted in good faith and their title was not otherwise defective their rights would prevail. It held that

“[t] he legal effect of valid sale contracts, in accordance with the legislation in force at the time, precludes the rights of former owners to obtain the restitution of agricultural land ...”

The situation changed in 1997 with the adoption of section 10(13) of the ALA. It provided that former owners ’ rights were to be restored even in cases where the land had been sold or transferred to third parties. It also provided that those third parties could not rely on acquisitive prescription. These provisions only applied to plots which had not been constructed upon.

In a judgment of 14 November 2000 ( Решение № 13 от 14 ноември 2000 г. по конституционно дело № 11 от 2000 г. ) the Constitutional Court found that section 10(13) of the ALA did not contradict the right to property guaranteed by the Constitution. It held that

“ the owners of land included in [agricultural co-operatives] have never lost their right to property, but have merely, during a certain period of time, been unable to exercise it. That is why any contracts transferring their land are unopposable to them, regardless of whether the third parties acquiring the land had acted in good faith or not.”

However, before 1990 it was considered that agricultural co-operatives could validly sell land to private individuals ( Тълкувателно решение № 16 от 11. III .1977 г. по гр. д. № 86/76 г., ОСГК ) . In addition, the former Supreme Court has found that upon collectivisation the co-operatives became the owners of collectivised land and that former owners ’ rights became extinguished ( Решение № 314 от 25 .II .1966 г. по гр. д. № 2484/66 г., I гр. о. ; Решение № 2119 от 31 .X .1966 г. по гр. д. № 1502/66 г., I гр. о. ).

COMPLAINT

Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Conve ntion and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, t he applicants complain that they were unfairly deprived of their property . They point out that they , respectively their predecessors, validly acquired the land in 1968, and that the legal effect of the sale contract was cancelled retroactively in 1997, without the contract having been in any way defective. They argue that this situation ran contrary the principle of legal certainty. Moreover, the applicants point out that they were deprived of their property without any compensation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Have the applicants been deprived of their property, namely the plot of land bought in 1968, in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did the applicable domestic law meet the requirement of legal certainty and foreseeability , and accordingly was the deprivation of the applicants of their property “subject to the conditions provided for by law”? In addition, did the fact that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation mean that the fair balance required under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had not been achieved (see, mutatis mutandis , Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, 15 March 2007 ; and Tsonkovi v. Bulgaria , no. 27213/04 , 2 July 2009 )?

The Government are requested to provide, in so far as available, statistical data on the number of cases where claims against third parties have been allowed by the domestic courts in application of section 10(13) of the Agricultural Land Act.

Appendix