FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 19130/04
by Tsvetana Stoycheva PETKOVA
against Bulgaria	Application no. 17694/05
by Radka Yovcheva IVANOVA
and Others
against Bulgaria	
Application no. 27777/06
by Dimitar Ognyanov YANKOV
against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 August 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Peer Lorenzen, President,
	Renate Jaeger,
	Karel Jungwiert,
	Rait Maruste,
	Mark Villiger,
	Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
	Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 May 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant in application no. 19130/04, Ms Tsvetana Stoycheva Petkova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Plovdiv. She is represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.
The applicants in application no. 17694/05, Ms Radka Yovcheva Ivanova, Ms Maria Zhekova Mincheva and Mr Atanas Zhekov Tanev, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1910, 1932 and 1929 respectively. Ms Mincheva and Mr Tanev live in Stara Zagora. Ms Radka Yovcheva Ivanova passed away on 2 December 2006. On 22 June 2009 the other two applicants, who inherited her estate, informed the Court that they wished to continue the application in her stead.
The applicant in application no. 27777/06, Mr Dimitar Ognyanov Yankov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1942 and lives in the village of Herakovo.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1.  The facts in the case of Ms Petkova (application no. 19130/04)
The applicant and her two sisters inherited their mother's estate after her death in 1972. In 1991 the applicant sought restitution of a plot of land measuring 6,500 square metres on behalf of all the heirs.
In a decision of 2 December 1994 the Plovdiv agricultural land commission found that the land, which had been included in the urban territory of Plovdiv, had been built upon; under the applicable legislative provisions this barred restitution. The applicant was informed of that decision on 27 July 1995. As no appeal was lodged against it, the decision became final.
Nevertheless, in 2000 the applicant applied to the land commission for restitution “in actual boundaries” of part of the plot. In a letter dated 8 November 2000 she was informed that the land commission's decision of 2 December 1994 had become final and could not be amended.
The applicant brought an action in the Plovdiv District Court seeking nullification of the decision of 2 December 1994. On 6 July 2001 the action was dismissed. Apparently considering that she stood no chance of success, the applicant did not appeal against the judgment.
In 1998 the applicant received a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture informing her that “the compensation procedures for Plovdiv” had not yet started. At the time of her latest communication to the Court in January 2010 the applicant had still not received compensation in lieu of restitution.
2.  The facts in the case of Ms Ivanova, Ms Mincheva and Ms Tanev (application no. 17694/05)
In 1991 and 1992 the applicants requested the restoration of their title to agricultural land formerly owned by an ancestor of theirs.
In two decisions dated 8 February 1992 and 22 July 1993 the Radnevo agricultural land commission recognised the applicants' rights to the properties at issue.
In further decisions dated 23 March 1994 and 3 May 1995 the commission found that the applicants should receive compensation for 34,000 square metres of land in the areas around Radnevo and the village of Golyama Detelina.
In two further decisions dated 19 April 2000 and 18 April 2001 the land commission determined the value of the compensation the applicants were to receive.
However, following appeals lodged by the applicants, by judgments dated 16 April 2001 and 17 December 2002 the Radnevo District Court found the last two decisions to be null and void on the ground that the land commission had committed material breaches of the relevant procedural rules.
On 10 May 2002 the applicants filed those judgments with the land commission and demanded that it adopt new decisions concerning their compensation.
In December 2002 they requested the Radnevo Municipal Council to allot them municipally owned land. This was refused. An appeal by the applicants against that refusal was found to be inadmissible by the courts.
On 28 March 2005 and 6 April 2005 the Radnevo Agriculture and Forestry Department (the former land commission) adopted new decisions concerning the applicants' compensation. However, on an appeal by the applicants, by judgments dated 8 February and 1 March 2006 the Radnevo District Court found these decisions null and void.
On 14 May 2007 the Agriculture and Forestry Department allotted municipally owned land to the second and third applicants in compensation for their ancestor's plots in Golyama Detelina. The second applicant, Ms Mincheva, lodged an appeal, arguing that the land was not of good quality. In a judgment of 7 January 2008 the Radnevo District Court quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration, finding that the decision had been based on the previous decisions of 19 April 2000 and 6 April 2005, which had already been found to be null and void.
At the time of the latest communication from Ms Mincheva and Mr Tanev in June 2009, they had not yet received any of the compensation due.
3.  The facts in the case of Mr Yankov (application no. 27777/06)
The applicant's grandfather owned agricultural land, which was expropriated after 1945.
(a)  Plots of land in Hrabarsko
In February 1992 the applicant and his grandfather's remaining heirs requested the restitution of nine plots of land in the village of Hrabarsko totalling 23,600 square metres.
In a decision of 11 July 1996 the Bozhurishte land commission refused restitution. However, it held that the claimants were entitled to receive compensation in the form of other land or compensation bonds.
On 11 February 2000 it adopted another decision to the same effect.
In a decision of 16 February 2007 the Bozhurishte Agriculture and Forestry Department (the former land commission) allotted to the heirs of the applicant's grandfather a plot of 14,870 square metres as partial compensation for the nine plots. At the time of the applicant's latest communication to the Court in July 2008 he had not received compensation for the remaining land.
(b)  Plots of land in Herakovo
On an unspecified date the heirs of the applicant's grandfather requested the restitution of another eighteen plots of land in the village of Herakovo totalling 36,100 square metres.
Apparently, the Bozhurishte land commission refused restitution and the heirs of the applicant's grandfather appealed to a court.
In a final judgment of 10 March 1998 the Slivnitsa District Court held that the heirs of the applicant's grandfather were entitled to the restitution of the land through a land redistribution plan.
On 15 July 1998 the judgment of 10 March 1998 was amended to include seven more plots totalling 8,750 square metres.
At the time of the applicant's latest communication to the Court in July 2008 the heirs of his grandfather had not been allotted any land through a land redistribution plan.
The Slivnitsa District Court's judgment of 10 March 1998 concerned, among others, a plot of 2,600 square metres. On 19 February 2000 the Bozhurishte land commission issued a decision concerning this and other plots which were to be restituted to the heirs of the applicant's grandfather “in actual boundaries”.
However, the plot at issue was in the possession of a third party and on an unspecified date in 2000 the heirs of the applicant's grandfather brought an action for rei vindicatio, claiming to be the owners of the land. The proceedings ended with a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation on 10 February 2006. The courts dismissed the action, finding, inter alia, that the decision of 19 February 2000 of the Bozhurishte land commission was null and void as it provided for the restitution of the disputed land “in actual boundaries” and thus contradicted the Slivnitsa District Court's judgment of 10 March 1998, which had provided for restitution through a redistribution plan. The judgment of 10 March 1998 had not itself created property rights in favour of the claimants.
(c)  Developments concerning other plots
Separately, in 2004, the applicant brought an action with a view to establishing that another plot of 1,500 square metres, whose restitution had earlier been obtained by third parties, had in fact been owned by his grandfather prior to the nationalisation.
The action was examined at three levels of jurisdiction and dismissed in a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation on 7 May 2007, as the courts found that the plot owned by the applicant's grandfather and the plot at issue in the case were not the same one.
The applicant submits documents related to other plots of land but does not raise any specific complaints in respect of them.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
The Agricultural Land Act () was enacted in 1991. Its provisions concerning the restitution of agricultural land, the possibility of compensation in lieu of restitution, and the relevant procedures have been summarised in the Court's judgments in the cases of Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria(no. 18967/03, §§ 61-63, 68-73, 76-78, 82 and 84-90, 3 December 2009) and Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria(no. 69855/01, §§ 83-88 and 92-92, 7 January 2010).
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1of the continued failure of the authorities to take the relevant steps to effect the restitution of their ancestors' agricultural land, as provided for by law.
In particular, the applicant in application no. 19130/04, Ms Petkova, and the applicants in application no. 17694/05, Ms Ivanova, Ms Mincheva and Ms Tanev, complained of the delay in providing them with compensation when the actual restitution of their land had turned out to be impossible. The applicant in application no. 27777/06, Yankov, complained of the delay in providing him and his grandfather's remaining heirs with compensation for the nine plots in the village of Hrabarsko and of the delay in complying with the Slivnitsa District Court's judgments of 10 March and 15 July 1998, which provided for the restitution of twenty-five plots of land through a land redistribution plan.
Some of the applicants also relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
2.  The in application no. 19130/04, Ms Petkova, also complained, relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that she had not been able to obtain the restitution “in actual boundaries” of a part of her mother's former plot, and that the Plovdiv District Court's judgment of 6 July 2001 had been arbitrary.
3.  Furthermore, Ms Petkova complained under Article 14 of the Convention that she had been discriminated against in that the former king of Bulgaria and his sister had obtained the restitution of their family's former property under more lenient procedures than the ones applicable to the restitution of her mother's plot.
4.  The applicant in application no. 27777/06, Yankov, complained, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the domestic courts had decided wrongly in the two sets of proceedings concerning the plots of 2,600 and 1,500 square metres in Herakovo and had, accordingly, deprived him of this land.
THE LAW
1.  As all three applications concern the process of restitution of agricultural land and contain, for the most part, similar complaints, the Court considers it appropriate to join them under Rule 42 (former 43) § 1 of its Rules.
2.  The applicants complained the continued failure of the authorities to complete the restitution of their agricultural land.
The Court considers that the complaints fall 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 these parts of the applications 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 them to the respondent Government.
3.  Ms Petkova (application no. 19130/04) and Mr Yankov (application no. 27777/06) raised further complaints under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 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 are 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 these parts of Ms Petkova and Mr Yankov's applications are 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 join the applications;
Decides to adjourn the examination of the complaints concerning the continued failure the authorities to complete the restitution of the applicants' agricultural land;
Declares the remainder of applications nos. 19130/04 and 27777/06 inadmissible.
 	Claudia Westerdiek	Peer Lorenzen 
	Registrar	President