5.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in the village of Ribaritsa. 6.  Her father, of whom she is the sole heir, owned agricultural land in the area surrounding the village which was incorporated into an agricultural cooperative at the beginning of the 1950s. 7.  In 1991, following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”, see paragraph 17 below), the applicant applied for the land’s restitution. 8.  By a decision dated 10 March 1999 the land commission dealing with the case refused to restore her rights to two plots of 900 and 2,000 square metres respectively, noting that sheep pens had been built on them by the agricultural cooperative. It held that the applicant was entitled to compensation in lieu of restitution. 9.  The above decision was served on the applicant in 2004, whereupon she applied for a judicial review. 10.  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, only assorted construction materials. Accordingly, there was no obstacle to the plots’ restitution in kind. In addition, the Agriculture and Forestry Department – the successor body of the land commission – had argued in the proceedings that the land had 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 completion of the restitution procedure. 11.  On the basis of the above, the District Court held that the applicant was entitled to the restitution in kind of the two plots of land. 12.  No appeal was lodged against the above judgment and it entered into force on 26 September 2005. 13.  On 20 February 2006 the Agriculture and Forestry Department took another decision on the same matter, 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 in 1995 the two plots had been sold by the agricultural cooperative to a third party, and that an agricultural building and a metal shelter had been erected on the plot of 2,127 square metres. It held once again that the applicant was entitled to compensation in lieu of restitution. 14.  The applicant applied for a judicial review of that decision. In a final judgment of 4 October 2006 the Lovech Regional Court found the decision null and void since it contradicted the judgment of 8 September 2005. 15.  The applicant submits that following the Lovech Regional Court’s judgment she paid numerous visits to the Agriculture and Forestry Department to request compliance with the judgment of 8 September 2005. In July 2007 she wrote to the Department’s superior body, the Lovech Regional Directorate of Agriculture and Forests, requesting its intervention. 16.  In 18 October 2006 the Agriculture and Forestry Department adopted a new decision on the matter. Noting that the applicant’s right to restitution had been recognised by virtue of the judgments of 8 September 2005 and 4 October 2006, it restored her rights to three plots, measuring 2,127, 319 and 454 square metres respectively, which were apparently identical to the plots discussed above. The decision identified the plots measuring 2,127 and 454 square metres with their borders and specifications under the cadastral plan, but not the plot of 319 square metres. The decision, a copy of which was submitted by the Government, bears no mention of having been received by the applicant.