FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 17705/05 Stanka Tsanova ILIEVA and others against Bulgaria lodged on 5 May 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Stanka Tsanova Ilieva , Mr Stanko Kalinov Stanev , Mr Kalin Tsvetanov Iliev and Mr Stanko Tsvetanov Iliev , are Bulgarian nationals, who were born in 1928, 1949, 1958 and 1954 respectively. The first three applicants live in Teteven and the fourth applicant lives in Pleven . The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva , lawyers practising 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 area of Teteven , which was collectivised after 1945.

In 1991, following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA ”), the applicants applied for the restitution of the land. In a decision of 25 July 1995 the Teteven agricultural land commission restored their property rights to a plot of 8,290 square metres in an area named Kostina .

However, after it was contacted by a State-owned company named “ Pochivno delo na SSHP” EOOD which informed it that it had taken measures to modify the plot ’ s status (it was still being formally registered as agricultural land) and have it included in the territory of a mountain hotel it was operating, on 26 February 1996 the land commission issued a new decision, refusing restitution of the plot “in actual boundaries”.

Following an appeal by the applicants, by final judgment of 9 April 1998 the Teteven District Court quashed the decision of 26 February 1996 and held that the applicants were entitled to the restitution of the plot “in actual boundaries”. It found, inter alia, that the procedure aimed at modifying the plot ’ s status and having it included in the territory of the hotel had not been completed in accordance with the law, and that there had been no grounds allowing the land commission to lawfully amend its earlier decision of 25 July 1995.

On the basis of the above judgment, on 5 March 1999 the applicants obtained a notary deed.

On 7 August 1998 “ Pochivno delo na SSHP” EOOD brought an action against the applicants, seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that it was the owner of the plot. In the ensuing proceedings the applicants brought a counter-claim for rei vindicatio . The case was examined by three levels of court and the Supreme Court of Cassation ’ s final judgment was given on 19 January 2005.

The courts considered that they were free to exercise “indirect review” of the judgment of the Teteven District Court of 9 April 1998 because “ Pochivno delo na SSHP” EOOD had not been bound by as it had not participated in the earlier proceedings. The courts found that the company had become the owner of the plot following its transformation into a State-owned company in 1995, since the State enterprise of which it was the successor had prior to that used and managed the property. Therefore, the land had not been subject to restitution. This was also so pursuant to section 10b of the ALA , which barred restitution of plots that had been constructed upon. Upon the plot at issue there were eight bungalows, a swimming pool, a road and maintenance buildings.

The applicants have not informed the Court whether they have applied to receive compensation under the ALA following the outcome of the above proceedings.

“ Pochivno delo na SSHP” EOOD, a former State enterprise, was transformed into a State-owned company on 23 January 1995. It was entered into the company register of Lovech on 1 March 1995.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria , no. 30383/03 , §§ 29-54 and 57-60, 1 5 November 2011 .

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that in the civil proceedings against “ Pochivno delo na SSHP” EOOD the national courts failed to respect the res judicata effect of the final judgment of the Teteven District Court given in the earlier restitution proceeding

2. They complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they were unable to obtain the restitution of their land “in actual boundaries”.

3. Lastly, the applicants complain, relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, that the restitution procedure in their case, including the 1998-2005 judicial proceedings, was too lengthy.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was there a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the case, in that in the 1998-2005 civil proceedings the courts re-examined the well ‑ foundedness of the applicants ’ restitution claims concerning the plot of 8,290 square metres, already the subject matter of the Teteven District Court ’ s judgment 9 April 1998? In particular, c ould the State-owned company “ Pochivno delo na SSHP” EOOD be considered a third party independent from the State, in view of the criteria established by the Court in the case of Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria (no. 30383/03 , §§ 66-75 , 1 5 November 2011)?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 given that the applicants could not obtain the restitution of their plot “in actual boundaries”? W as the interference with the applicants ’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 lawful and justified, in view, in particular, of the criteria established in the case of Sivova and Koleva (cited above, §§ 99 ‑ 114 )?

Was the restitution procedure too lengthy and were the applicants placed in a situation of insecurity, given that they were involved in many years of litigation in order to have their restitution rights determined and enforced (see Sivova and Koleva , cited above, §§ 115-17)?

3. Was the length of the 1998-2005 civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in that regard, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The parties are requested to provide information on any developments after 2005 concerning compensation in lieu of restitution. They are also requested to specify the applicants ’ respective shares in the disputed property.