FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55521/07
Zlatka Georgieva HRISAFOVA-VANTSOVA and Others
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 April 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Paul Mahoney,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 November 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 May 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants, Ms Zlatka Georgieva Hrisafova-Vantsova, Mr Petar Ivanov Vantsov, Ms Keti Lyubomirova Ruskova and Mr Vesel Dimitrov Vantsov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1942, 1981, 1945 and 1936 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Asenovgrad, the third applicant lives in Ruse and the fourth applicant lives in Plovdiv.
The four applicants are represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms S. Stefanova, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Hristova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The part of the application concerning the delays in the restitution proceedings and the length of the civil proceedings was communicated to the Government.
An ancestor of the applicants owned agricultural land in the area of Asenovgrad, which was collectivised in the 1950s.
After his death in 1974 the ancestor’s property was inherited, apparently in equal shares, by Mr I.V., husband of the first applicant and father of the second applicant, and the third and fourth applicants.
Following the entry into force of the 1991 Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”) providing for the restoration of title to certain categories of properties, Mr I.V. applied on behalf of all heirs for the restitution of several plots of land, including one of 2,958 square metres. In a decision of 29 December 1998 the Asenovgrad agricultural land commission restored the heirs’ rights to the plot of 2,958 square metres and on 29 January 1999 they obtained a notary deed.
However, they could not enter into possession of this plot, which had in the meantime been included in Asenovgrad’s industrial zone and constructed upon, because it was being used by Volantransport AD. The latter was a former State-owned enterprise, which had, on an unspecified date, been transformed into a limited liability company and in August 1998 had been privatised.
On 7 September 2000 Mr I.V. brought a rei vindicatio action against Volantransport AD, claiming to obtain possession of the plot. The action was examined by three levels of court and dismissed in a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 29 May 2007. The courts found that the land at issue had ceased to be agricultural, had been constructed upon and pursuant to section 10b of the ALA had not been subject to restitution. Thus, the Asenovgrad agricultural land commission’s decision of 29 December 1998 had been devoid of any legal effect.
In the course of the proceedings Mr I.V. deceased and was succeeded by the first and second applicants.
Following the developments above the applicants have not sought compensation under the ALA or the legislation concerning transformation and privatisation of former State-owned enterprises.
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning restitution of agricultural land and compensation in lieu thereof 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, 15 November 2011.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained, relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that after many years of litigation they had eventually been unable to obtain the restitution “in actual boundaries” of the plot of 2,958 square metres.
2. In addition, the applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the 2000-2007 rei vindicatio proceedings brought by Mr I.V. had been excessively lengthy and that they had not had at their disposal effective remedies in that regard.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complained, first, of the unjustified delay of the restitution process. The first and second applicants, heirs of Mr I.V., complained in addition of the length of the rei vindicatio proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that respect.
After the failure of the attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 16 May 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by this part of the application. They acknowledged that the delays in the restitution procedure, and, insofar as the first and second applicants were concerned, the duration of the civil proceeding and the lack of effective remedies amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. The Government offered to each of the four applicants a compensation of 1,500 euros (EUR), or EUR 6,000 in total.
The Government invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. They suggested that the declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The declaration also provided that the sum offered in compensation was to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, would be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicants, and would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The sum above would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay the sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
By a letter of 4 July 2013, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. They considered that the amount offered in compensation was insufficient and that such low compensation would not serve as a deterrent to future similar violations.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
The Court also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by reason of the excessive delays and the lack of legal certainty in proceedings concerning restitution of agricultural land in a number of cases against Bulgaria (see Sivova and Koleva, cited above; Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 69855/01, 7 January 2010; Naydenov v. Bulgaria, no. 17353/03, 26 November 2009; Vasilev and Doycheva v. Bulgaria, no. 14966/04, 31 May 2012; Petkova and Others, nos. 19130/04, 17694/05 and 27777/06, 25 September 2012; Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 19988/06, 11 December 2012). In the case of Vasilev and Doycheva (see §§ 68-69 of the judgment) the Court pointed out that the problem was recurrent and, relying on Article 46 of the Convention, expressed the view that the Bulgarian authorities had to provide for clear time‑limits for the adoption and enforcement of administrative decisions necessary for the completion of the process of restitution of agricultural land.
In addition, the Court has found violation in numerous cases concerning the excessive duration of civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that regard, including against Bulgaria (see Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, 10 May 2011; Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Dzhagarova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 5191/05, 2 September 2010; Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria, no. 20568/02, 2 July 2009).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given its clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
2. The applicants also complained they had eventually been unable to obtain the restitution “in actual boundaries” of the plot of 2,958 square metres.
The third and fourth applicants complained in respect of the length of the rei vindicatio proceedings.
Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, to its case-law and in particular its findings in the similar case of Sivova and Koleva, cited above, and insofar as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration concerning the complaint of all applicants of unjustified delays in the restitution procedure and the complaints of the first and second applicants in respect of the length of the rei vindicatio proceedings, and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıNona Tsotsoria
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy