FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52035/07
Elena Pavlova TODOROVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 January 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
George Nicolaou,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 November 2007,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 7 November 2013 and 21 November 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, and the applicant’s reply,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Elena Pavlova Todorova, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Plovdiv. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms G. Chernicherska, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Panova, from the Ministry of Justice.
On 11 June 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s grandmother owned agricultural land in the area of Plovdiv, which, in the 1940s or the beginning of the 1950s, was included in an agricultural cooperative.
In 1991, following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act, on behalf of his mother’s heirs the applicant’s father applied for the restitution of a plot of land of 16,000 square metres. As the land had in the meantime been included in the urban territory of Plovdiv and was being used for economic activity, in a decision of 14 February 1995 the respective agricultural land commission held that the applicant’s grandmother’s heirs were entitled to receive compensation in lieu of restitution.
By two letters to the land commission dated 23 March 1995 and 9 December 1999 the applicant’s father specified the means of compensation preferred by him – equivalent municipally-owned land.
On 26 September 2000 the land commission adopted a decision setting the value of the compensation to be awarded.
In another decision of 22 November 2005 the Agriculture and Forestry Department (successor of the land commission) held that, due to the unavailability of sufficient land in the area, only a part of the compensation would be through land, and the remainder would be through compensation bonds. After the applicant applied for that decision’s judicial review, it was upheld in a final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 June 2007.
In the beginning of 2013 the applicant had not yet received the compensation due to her.
The applicant is entitled to one sixth of her grandmother’s inheritance.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the authorities had failed for lengthy periods of time to complete the restitution procedure.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7 November 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. The Government submitted a declaration on 7 November 2013 and an amended declaration on 21 November 2014.
The Government acknowledged that the delays in the restitution procedure amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and offered to the applicant a compensation of 4,000 euros. They stated that this sum 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 applicant, and would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The sum 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.
On that basis the Government invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. They suggested that their declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason”, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list.
By letters of 18 December 2013 and 6 January 2015 the applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. She made detailed submissions, which concerned however some of her initial complaints, already declared inadmissible by the Court.
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 observes also 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully 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; see also WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court has found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the excessive delays in proceedings concerning restitution of agricultural land in a number of cases against Bulgaria (see 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; Nedelcheva and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 5516/05, 28 May 2013; Petkova and Others v. Bulgaria [Committee], nos. 19130/04, 17694/05 and 27777/06, 25 September 2012; Ivanov v. Bulgaria [Committee], 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.
Having regard to the nature of the admission contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in the similar cases cited above – 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 observes 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 (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities 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 19 February 2015.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy