Communicated on 26 May 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 54833/07 Todorka Petrova DIMITROVA and others against Bulgaria lodged on 30 November 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Restitution of the applicants ’ property

Following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act 1991, in 1993 an agricultural land commission restituted to the applicants in real boundaries plot No 284 (new No 104) of agricultural land. The plot in question had belonged to the applicants ’ ancestor before it had been nationalised . A film company, “New Boyana film”, was using the land at the time of the restitution. It continued to use the land thereafter, refusing to vacate it.

The applicants brought a rei vindicatio claim against the company. On 13 September 1998 the Sofia District Court upheld the applicants ’ claim and ordered the company to hand over possession of the plot of land to them. The Sofia District Court ’ s judgment became final in July 1999. Later that year, the land commission issued another decision, again restituting the land to the applicants in real boundaries. In 2001, the mayor issued an order for the change in the cadastral plan by introducing in it the boundaries of the plot restituted to the applicants.

2. Enforcement proceedings

The applicant brought enforcement proceedings against the company in 2000. On two occasions, in August 2000 and in December 2002, the bailiff handed over possession of the land to the applicants, marking their plot of land with poles inserted into the ground. Apparently, the film company removed the poles each time and continued to use the land.

3. Proceedings challenging the change in cadastral plan

In 2003, the film company appealed against the 2001 mayor ’ s order which had introduced the boundaries of the applicants ’ plot into the cadastral plan. The applicants were constituted as interested parties. In a decision of 2004 the Sofia City Court (SCC, administrative division) declared the 2001 mayor ’ s order null and void. The decision was quashed in 2009 by the Supreme Administrative Court, which found that the mayor had been competent to issue the order. The case was sent back to the SCC for a new examination. The SCC found in favour of the applicants in April 2011. However, the court erroneously recorded in the operative part of the judgment that it quashed the mayor ’ s order as unlawful. The court rectified this obvious factual mistake in a decision of June 2011. That decision contained another error as the number of the plot of land in question was wrongly recorded. In a separate decision of October 2011 the SCC rectified the outstanding error. The Supreme Court of Cassation terminated the proceedings in January 2013 after both parties withdrew their respective cassation claims.

4. Proceedings related to the confirmation of the cadastral plan by the cadastral agency

In the context of the proceedings before the SCC described above, the agency for geodesy, cartography and cadaster (the cadastral agency) carried out a procedure for the confirmation of the cadastral plan. On 2 December 2010 the agency head approved the cadastral plan in which plot No. 104 was recorded as belonging to the applicants. The head of the ag ency issued another order on 11 February 2011, indicating that ownership of the applicants ’ plot was contested. This was done in response to a request by the film company for a change of an obvious factual mistake of the cadastral plan not related to the applicants ’ plot of land. The applicants challenged in court the February 2011 order. In the meantime, in May 2011 the agency recorded on the cadastral plan that the owner of the plot in question was the film company. The Sofia City Administrative Court found in the applicants ’ favour in January 2013. Following an appeal by the film company the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court ’ s jud gment in a final decision of 15 July 2013.

The applicants asked the agency to change the cadastral plan in accordance with the final judgment of 15 July 2013. In a letter to the Court of 15 November 2013 the applicants submitted that the cadastral plan has not yet been changed.

5. Proceedings challenging the applicants ’ property rights

The film company brought court proceedings in 2007, claiming property rights over the plot of land restituted to the applicants. The Sofia District Court found in 2009 that the claim was inadmissible because the issue of the property had been settled with res judicata effects between the same parties. The decision became final on 20 January 2010 when the Supreme Court of Cassation did not allow cassation appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that, as a result of the authorities ’ examination of the claims brought by the film company in 2003 and 2007, they have been unable peacefully to enjoy their property while those proceedings were pending, as well as to obtain enforcement of the Sofia District Court ’ s final judgment of 1998 ordering the film company to hand over possession of the land to the applicants.

The applicants also complain under Article 6 § 1 under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about lack of legal certainty stemming from the re-examination of the question of the property by the national courts in the proceedings brought by the film company in 2007.

The applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention about a lack of effective remedy in relation to the above complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the m eaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as a result of their continued inability peacefully to enjoy their property because of two sets of court proceedings brought by a third party in 2003 and 2007, and of the February 2011 order of the cadastral agency? Was the interference lawful, did it pursue a legitimate aim and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants, bearing in mind that a judgment of the Sofia District Court of 1998 settled with res judicata effects the property dispute between the applicants and the same third party?

2. Who was eligible to challenge in court the mayor ’ s order of 2001? In particular, could parties having no legal interest bring such proceedings? In that connection, did the applicants have a domestic remedy, as required under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, for protection of their property rights against claims they considered vexatious?

3. When did the judgment of the Sofia District Court of 1998 become enforceable under national law? In particular, could it have been enforced while the judicial proceedings, brought by the third party in 2003 and 2007, were pending, or once the cadastral agency issued the February 2011 order?

4. Was the decision of the Sofia District Court of 13 September 1998 enforced in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? If yes, when?

Appendix