THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2266/21
Galina Kirilova STOYANOVA and Others
against Bulgaria
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 June 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 December 2020,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
A list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev, Ms K. Boncheva and Ms M. Dokova-Kostadinova, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the excessive duration and the lack of certainty in a restitution procedure were communicated to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They offered to pay jointly to the applicants, Ms Galina Kirilova Stoyanova and Ms Tatyana Kirilova Petrova (their mother, the third applicant, has passed away – see the appendix), 5,500 euros, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, to cover any pecuniary and non pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. This amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration on 28 March 2025. The Court has not received a response from them.
Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention enables the Court 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”.
Thus, it may strike out applications 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 (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the duration of the restitution process in Bulgaria and the accompanying lack of certainty as to the scope of the applicants’ restitution rights (see, for example, Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria, no. 30383/03, 15 November 2011; Karaivanova and Mileva v. Bulgaria, no. 37857/05, 17 June 2014; Ilieva and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17705/05, 3 February 2015).
Noting 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)).
In the light of the above considerations, 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 may 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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 July 2025.
Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Galina Kirilova STOYANOVA
1946
Bulgarian
Karlovo
2.
Tatyana Kirilova PETROVA
1950
Bulgarian
Karlovo
3.
Tota Petkova BAKARDZHIEVA
Passed away in 2024. Two other applicants are her heirs, who stated that they wished to pursue the application in her stead
1925
Bulgarian