Communicated on 2 October 2020
Published on 19 October 2020
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 39852/14
Salih Halilov BEKTASHEV
against Bulgaria
lodged on 20 May 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Salih Halilov Bektashev, was a Bulgarian national born in 1944. He passed away in 2015 and his son, Mr Kemal Salihov Bektashev, expressed the wish to continue the proceedings in his stead.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s father owned agricultural land, which was collectivised in the 1950s.
After the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act in 1991, the applicant applied for restitution. The entitlement of his father’s heirs to the restitution of two plots of land totalling 10,000 square metres was recognised in a decision of the Sarnitsa land commission of 3 December 1992.
Subsequently the Sarnitsa land commission was dismantled and its cases were transferred to the Velingrad land commission which, in two decisions dated 3 June 1999 and 5 August 2002, acknowledged once again the restitution entitlement of the heirs of the applicant’s father.
In the years that followed, due to the insufficiency of the available land in the area, many restitution decisions were revised and a new distribution of the plots to be restituted was adopted. As concerns the heirs of the applicant’s father, in a decision of 21 January 2009 the Velingrad Agricultural Department (former land commission, hereinafter “the Department”) ordered the restitution in kind of two plots of land, totalling 3,511 square metres. That decision, which indicated the specifications of the plots and was accompanied by the requisite cadastral plans, has entered into force.
In September 2009 another heir of the applicant’s father objected against the new distribution of the plots for restitution. On 26 January 2010 the Department dismissed the objection. The applicant applied for judicial review, and the Department’s decision of 26 January 2010 was quashed in a final judgment of 16 July 2010 of the Pazardzhik Administrative Court, which remitted the matter to the Department for a fresh examination. The domestic courts observed that the decision at issue lacked reasoning, and in particular failed to explain why only 3,511 square metres of land were being restituted in kind to the heirs of the applicant’s father.
In the years that followed the applicant petitioned on numerous occasions the Department and other State bodies, seeking the restitution in kind of 10,000 square metres of land. He referred in particular to the final court judgment of 16 July 2010.
In several letters addressed to the applicant and to other bodies, sent between 2010 and 2014, the Department explained that the land in the area of Sarnitsa had been insufficient to satisfy the claims of all former owners, and that on many occasions it had sought their accord as to the distribution of the available plots. Parts of the land initially recognised for restitution had turned out to be property of third parties not participating in the process of restitution, to have been submerged by the waters of an artificial lake, or to have always been State property and thus not subject to restitution. At one point the applicant was advised to indicate his preferred means of compensation with regard to the land which was not subject to restitution in kind, and on other occasions it was stated that the compensation track could not be pursued, because in his initial restitution request the applicant had not specified which parts of the land he had claimed would be concerned.Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the restitution of agricultural land have been summarised in Zikatanova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 45806/11, §§ 47-59, 12 December 2019).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the domestic authorities’ failure to complete the restitution procedure. In particular, he submitted that the Department was unlawfully refusing to comply with the final court judgment of 16 July 2010 and that the procedure had lasted an excessively lengthy period of time. The applicant complained in addition under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
In a letter of January 2020 the applicant’s son, who pursues the proceedings in his father’s stead, stated that the Department’s decision of 21 January 2009 had not been executed and that he and the remaining heirs of his grandfather had not entered into possession of the respective plots of land. The applicant’s son contested the Agricultural Department’s position that no land was available for restitution in the area. He submitted as evidence a copy of a contract by which in March 2019 the State had sold to a private company a plot in the same area measuring 6,777 square metres.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Are the failure of the domestic authorities to complete the restitution procedure initiated by the applicant and the duration of that procedure in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 18967/03, 3 December 2009; Nedelcheva and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 5516/05, 28 May 2013; Velcheva v. Bulgaria, no. 35355/08, 9 June 2015)? Has there in addition been a violation of Article 13, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
Why has the restitution procedure not been completed and what are the possible means to that end? Why has the decision of 21 January 2009 on partial restitution in kind not been enforced? What are the latest relevant developments?
The parties are also requested to specify the applicant’s share in his father’s inheritance.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy