FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 35355/08
Gana Petkova VELCHEVA
against Bulgaria
lodged on 30 June 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Gana Petkova Velcheva, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1927 and lives in the village of Ribaritsa. She is represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms G. Chernicherska, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
An ancestor of the applicant owned agricultural land in the area of the village of Ribaritsa, which was included in an agricultural cooperative in the beginning of the 1950s.
In 1991, following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”), the applicant applied, on behalf of her ancestor’s heirs, for the restitution of the land.
By a decision dated 10 March 1999 the respective agricultural land commission refused to restore the heirs’ rights to, inter alia, two plots of 900 and 2,000 square metres respectively, noting that sheep pens of the agricultural cooperative had been built on them. It held that the heirs were entitled to compensation under section 10b of the ALA.
The above decision was served on the applicant in 2004 and she applied for its judicial review.
In a judgment of 8 September 2005 the Teteven District Court quashed the decision of 10 March 1999, finding, on the basis of an expert report, that there were no buildings on the plots at issue, but only scattered construction materials. Accordingly, there was no obstacle to the plots’ restitution in kind. In addition, the successor of the land commission, the Agriculture and Forestry Department, had argued in the proceedings that the land had in the meantime been sold by the agricultural cooperative to a third party. According to the District Court, this circumstance, apart from being unsubstantiated, could not bar restitution in kind either, because any dispute as to the land’s ownership would fall to be examined by the civil courts after the completion of the restitution procedure.
On the basis of the above, the District Court held that the heirs of the applicant’s ancestor were entitled to the restitution in kind of the two plots of land. It remitted the case back to the Agriculture and Forestry Department to issue a decision specifying the plots’ exact borders.
The above judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 26 September 2005.
Despite that judgment, on 20 February 2006 the Agriculture and Forestry Department took another decision on the same issue, refusing the restitution in kind of two plots of land, one of 2,127 square metres and the other of 454 square metres (apparently identical to the plots discussed above). The Department noted that the two plots had been sold by the agricultural cooperative to a third party in 1994, and that on the plot of 2,127 square metres there were an agricultural building and a metal shelter. It held once again that the heirs of the applicant’s ancestor were entitled to compensation in lieu of restitution.
The applicant applied for that decision’s judicial review. In a final judgment of 4 October 2006 the Lovech Regional Court found the decision null and void, as it was impermissibly modifying the judgment of 8 September 2005.
The applicant submits that following the Regional Court’s judgment she visited on numerous occasions the Agriculture and Forestry Department to request compliance with the judgment of 8 September 2005. On 3 July 2007 she wrote to the Department’s superior body, the Lovech Regional Directorate of Agriculture and Forests, requesting its interference.
Nevertheless, as of the applicant’s latest letter to the Court of 5 October 2012 the judgment of 8 September had not yet been complied with and the Agriculture and Forestry Department had not taken a decision specifying the two plots’ borders.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant provisions of the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”) and the Regulations for its implementation have been summarised in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 18967/03, §§ 61-63 and 68-81 and 92, 3 December 2009), and Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria (no. 30383/03, §§ 30-32 and 36-43, 15 November 2011).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, that the Agriculture and Forestry Department failed to comply with the Teteven District Court’s judgment of 8 September 2005 and complete the process of restitution. She considers in addition that the process of restitution has been too lengthy.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary? In particular, did the respective Agriculture and Forestry Department rely on reasons of a substantial and compelling character to refuse compliance with the Teteven District Court’s judgment of 8 September 2005 and was its refusal in breach of the principle of legal certainty (see Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 18967/03, §§ 120-138, 3 December 2009)?
2. Did the Agriculture and Forestry Department’s continued failure to comply with the judgment of 8 September 2005 also amount to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
The applicant is requested to specify her share in her ancestor’s inheritance.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy