Published on 17 October 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 57180/19 Tsvetan Tsenov DAMYANOV against Bulgaria lodged on 18 October 2019 communicated on 26 September 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns restitution of agricultural land. In 1994 the body competent in that field, a local land commission (later on renamed as agricultural department), ordered the restitution of several plots of land measuring 50,800 square metres in total to the heirs of N. However, in a judgment of 24 February 2003, final in 2005, the Pleven District Court declared that it had been an ancestor of the applicant who had owned that land before the nationalisation, and that his heirs, and not those of N., were entitled to the restitution. In 2009 the applicant submitted the above judgment to the agricultural department, and in 2010 obtained a further court judgment ordering the department to take a decision on his restitution claims, but the department failed to abide.

The circumstances above were the subject of the applicant’s first application with the Court, where he complained of the non-enforcement of final court judgments in his favour. The case was communicated to the Government and the parties reached a friendly settlement, which was approved by the Court in 2016 (see Damyanov v. Bulgaria (dec.) [Committee], no. 17203/13, 14 June 2016).

Subsequently the applicant learned that between 2010 and 2013 the heirs of N. had sold some plots to third parties, after having obtained from the agricultural department the requisite cadastral plans.

On 30 May 2019 the agricultural department adopted a decision recognising that the heirs of the applicant’s ancestor were entitled to the restitution of the land claimed by them. After the applicant sought judicial review, the decision was upheld by the national courts (final judgment of 14 January 2021), who found that it was correctly implementing the court judgment of 24 February 2003. At the present juncture it remains unclear what is the applicant’s situation following that decision, what further steps are necessary and possible in order to transfer ownership to him and the remaining heirs, and whether he can claim the plots of land sold by N.’s heirs in 2010-2013.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the court judgment of 24 February 2003 has not been enforced effectively, and that the agricultural department has thwarted such enforcement by issuing cadastral plans and enabling the sale of plots of land by N.’s heirs.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has Article 6 § 1 of the Convention been breached in the case? In particular, has the court judgment of 24 February 2003 acknowledging the applicant’s restitution rights been effectively and meaningfully enforced in the period after the closure of case no. 17203/13 (see Velcheva v. Bulgaria , no. 35355/08, §§ 41-47, 9 June 2015)?

2. Does the alleged continued failure to enforce the judgment of 24 February 2003 after the closure of application no. 17203/13 constitute a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 18967/03, §§ 130-38, 3 December 2009, and Velcheva , cited above, §§ 49-50)?

In particular, what are the legal consequences of the agricultural department’s decision of 30 May 2019 and what further steps are necessary, or possible, to render the applicant’s restitution rights effective? Does the sale of several plots of land in 2010-2013 by N.’s heirs prevent the effective restitution and, if so, is the State liable for that obstacle?

The applicant is in addition requested to indicate his share in his ancestor’s inheritance.