FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 26471/06
by Nevena Taneva ZAGORCHINOVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 June 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nevena Taneva Zagorchinova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Plovdiv.
A. 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 several plots of land in Chirpan and the area around it, which were nationalised for different reasons after 1944. After the adoption of denationalisation legislation in Bulgaria at the beginning of the 1990s the applicant and her father's remaining heirs initiated several procedures seeking to have their property rights restored. The applicant, who has two siblings, is entitled to one-third of her father's former property.
1. First group of plots
In 1991 the applicant and the remaining heirs requested restitution of several plots of agricultural land. By a decision of 12 October 1992 the Chirpan agricultural land commission (“the land commission”) their request in respect of most of the plots was satisfied. However, the land commission refused the restitution of two plots measuring respectively 7,000 and 3,000 square metres. On an appeal by the claimants, by a final judgment of 30 October 1996 the Chirpan District Court found that they were only entitled to the restitution of the plot of 7,000 square metres.
Regarding the plot of 3,000 square metres, there were no relevant developments after the judgment of 30 October 1996.
On an unspecified date, on behalf of all the heirs, the applicant requested restitution of another five plots totalling 28,500 square metres. By a decision of 14 October 1998 the land commission refused to restore the heirs' rights. On appeal, on 29 October 1999 the Chirpan District Court reversed that decision, holding that the applicant and her father's remaining heirs were entitled to restitution of those plots.
Subsequently, by two decisions of 20 April 2001 the land commission found that the applicant's father's heirs were to receive compensation in comparable municipally-owned land or bonds for the plots above, namely the one of 7,000 square metres and the five plots totalling 28,500 square metres.
In 2002 the applicant brought a claim against the land commission seeking damages “for not having been able to gain profit” from the use of the plots described above. On 23 November 2004 the claim was dismissed by the Stara Zagora Regional Court, which pointed out that the applicant's father's heirs were entitled to compensation in lieu of restitution, and not to the use of the plots. On 4 July 2005 the applicant's ensuing appeal on points of law was found to be inadmissible.
At the time of her latest communication to the Court of January 2010 the applicant had not yet received any compensation for the six plots at issue.
2. Second group of plots
On an unspecified date the applicant and her father's remaining heirs requested that the expropriation of five plots in Chirpan, carried out in the 1950s with a view to constructing new buildings, be cancelled. The mayor's refusal to allow the request was upheld by the Stara Zagora Regional Court in a final judgment of 10 March 1993.
Following the adoption of legislation providing for compensation where restitution was impossible, the applicant and the remaining heirs applied for compensation for the plots above. By a judgment of 8 November 1999 the Stara Zagora Regional Court disallowed their application. Apparently the applicant's ensuing appeal against that judgment, submitted on 22 November 1999, one day after the expiry of the applicable time-limit appeal, was never sent to the Supreme Administrative Court.
3. Plot of 1,300 square metres
By a decision of 12 October 1992 the land commission restored the property rights of the applicant's father's heirs to 1,300 square metres of land in Chirpan, part of an older, larger plot. The applicant submits that measurements carried out in 1995 established that the part due to be restored measured 2,246 square metres. On several occasions she requested the land commission to restore the heirs' rights to 2,246 square metres but the outcome of these requests is unclear.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The Agricultural Land Act (Закон за собствеността и ползването на земеделските земи) was adopted in 1991. Its relevant provisions concerning the restitution of agricultural lands to their former owners have recently been summarised in the Court's judgments in the cases of Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 69855/01, §§ 83‑87 and 92, 7 January 2010), and Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 18967/03, §§ 61, 68-74, 82 and 89-90, 3 December 2009.
COMPLAINTS
1. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that she had not been able to obtain restitution of the first group of plots and that the authorities had delayed providing her with compensation in lieu of restitution. Furthermore, she complained that the compensation would most likely be through compensation bonds, and not in the form of other comparable land.
2. In respect of the developments concerning the first group of plots, the applicant complained also that the Stara Zagora Regional Court had decided wrongly in its judgment of 23 November 2004 and that her ensuing appeal on points of law had been found to be inadmissible.
3. Relying once again on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that she could obtain neither restitution of the second group of plots nor any compensation in lieu thereof. Furthermore, she complained that her appeal against the Stara Zagora Regional Court judgment of 8 November 1999 had not been sent to the Supreme Administrative Court.
4. Lastly, the applicant complained that her father's heirs had only obtained restitution of 1,300 square metres, and not of 2,246 square metres, of the larger plot (see above, Facts 3.).
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that the authorities had failed over a considerable period of time to provide her with compensation for the plot of 7,000 square metres and the five plots totalling 28,500 square metres, in accordance with the Chirpan agricultural land commission decisions of 20 April 2001.
The complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Court considers that it cannot determine the admissibility of this complaint on the basis of the case file alone, and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant raised further complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in 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
Decides to adjourn the examination of the complaint concerning the authorities' continued failure to provide the applicant with compensation in lieu of the restitution;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy