1177e réunion – 11 septembre 2013
Annexe 5
(Point H46-1)
Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)153
Angel Angelov contre Bulgarie
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête no 51343/99, arrêt du 15 février 2007, définitif le 15 mai 2007)
(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 11 septembre 2013,
lors de la 1177e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées « la Convention » et « la Cour »),
Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée ;
Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire :
- de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum ; et
- de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;
Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée ;
Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)756) ;
S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
ACTION REPORT (anglais uniquement)
Case Angel Angelov v. Bulgaria
Application No. 51343/99, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007
1.Convention violation found
The case concerns the lack of access to a court due to the unmotivated dismissal of the applicant’s petition for review (cassation) by the Supreme Court of Cassation in 1999 (violation of Article 6 § 1). The violation of the applicant’s rights was apparently due to a judicial mistake leading the Supreme Court of Cassation to believe that his appeal was time-barred.
The European Court noted that the order dismissing the applicant’s petition as time-barred could not be seen as a justified enforcement of a legitimate procedural limitation on the applicant’s right of access to a court, because it did not indicate the dates on which the relevant time-limit had started to run and expired and the date on which the appeal had been submitted.
2.Individual measures
The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained. The compensation awarded was transferred to the applicant’s account on 2 August 2007.
Since 2007 until now, no request for reopening from Angel Angelov has been received in the Supreme Prosecution of Cassation. The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation has not requested the reopening of the proceedings. By letter of 4 January 2012 of the Plovdiv Regional Court, the Bulgarian authorities were informed that the case-file has been destroyed following the expiration of the period during which a case file is kept in the archives of the court. The absence of the case file makes it impossible for the Supreme Prosecution of Cassation to file a request to the Supreme Court of Cassation to reopen the case.
In these circumstances, no further individual measures are possible in this case.
3. General measures
a)Publication and dissemination of the judgment
The translation of the judgment is available on the Ministry of Justice website at
The translation of the judgment was sent to the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Prosecution of Cassation through a circular letter drawing their attention to the main conclusions of the ECHR’s judgment.
By a letter of 9 January 2012, the Supreme Court of Cassation has indicated that the judgment in the case of Angel Angelov had been made available to all the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation through the internal information system of the court.
b)Practice concerning decisions dismissing requests for reopening of criminal proceedings
i.Reopening of criminal proceedings
The reopening of criminal cases – a procedure similar to the review proceedings described in the Angel Angelov judgment, is currently regulated in Chapter 33[1] of the Criminal Procedure Code.
By a letter of 9 January 2012, the Supreme Court of Cassation has provided a detailed description of its current practice with respect to the decisions dismissing petitions for reopening.
The verification of compliance with the terms and preconditions for admissibility of the petitions is done by each of the three chairpersons of the departments in the criminal division of the Supreme Court of Cassation. After the verification, instructions shall be made which propose the reopening of proceedings or a refusal to reopen the proceedings. If there are grounds for refusal to initiate proceedings for reopening, the chairman of the department shall prepare an order containing the following details: name of the chairman of the department; the date of issuance of the order; the grounds for inadmissibility and other motives. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, this decision shall not be subject to subsequent control. There is an opportunity for a new referral to the Supreme Court of Cassation, if the reasons for the refusal are removed.
If any inaccuracies are detected in the order, like false circumstances or wrongly calculated deadlines, the person may apply to the President of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation. After verification, the President of the Criminal Division may cancel the order of the chairman of the Department and initiate a reopening of the proceedings. Such a possibility was available in practice to the applicant Angelov after the notification of the order dismissing the petition for revision.
In more complex cases, the President of the Criminal Division shall initiate proceedings which are heard by a three-judge panel, according to Art. 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Chapter 33 (in the absence of special rules, the rules of cassation proceedings apply).
ii.Cassation appeal in criminal proceedings
The compliance of the cassation appeal with the formal requirements of the Criminal Procedure Court is to be examined by a judge from the second instance court. If the judge decides that a cassation appeal does not meet the above-mentioned formal requirements, the interested party may appeal his or her order before a panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation.
The established practice in the areas of law enforcement and drafting of legal acts provides full guarantees for parties to know the reasons for a refusal to reopen proceedings and in case of disagreement with them to submit a new application for reopening.
Conclusion
No other measures including any legislative amendments seem to be necessary for execution of the judgment.
[1] Article 420 (2) Any individual sentenced for a publicly actionable criminal offence who has not been exempted from criminal liability with the imposition of an administrative punishment on grounds of Art. 78a Criminal Code may alone extend a request for reopening the criminal case in the hypotheses of Art. 422, paragraph 1, item 5.
Article 421 (3) The sentenced person may file a new request under Art. 422, paragraph 1, item 5, within six months of the entry into force of the respective act.
Article 422 (1) A criminal case shall be reopened where (…):
4. By virtue of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, a violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has been established that has a considerable importance for the case;
5. Substantial violations have been committed under Article 348, paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs 1-3 under sentences, decisions, court rulings and orders which have not been examined in the course of cassation proceedings.
Art. 424 (1) The request for reopening of the case shall be examined by the Supreme Court of Cassation.
Art. 426 The rules for cassation proceedings shall apply, insofar as this Chapter does not contain any special rules.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy