FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 38659/07 and 48904/07
Elka Ivanova ALEKSANDROVA and Aleksandar Ivanov ALEKSANDROV against Bulgaria
and Albena Ivanova ALEKSANDROVA against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Robert Spano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 17 August 2007 and 12 October 2007 respectively,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants Ms Elka Ivanova Aleksandrova, Mr Aleksandar Ivanov Aleksandrov and Ms Albena Ivanova Aleksandrova, are Bulgarian nationals, who were born in 1953, 1950 and 1947 respectively and live in Sindel. They were represented before the Court by Mr P. Petrov, a lawyer practicing in Varna.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr V. Obretenov and Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 September 1993 criminal proceedings for aggravated murder were opened against the applicants and they were questioned.
On 6 November 1996 the applicants were indicted and the proceedings began before the Varna Regional Court. By a decision of 25 October 1999 the Varna Regional Court remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities for additional investigation.
On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicants were indicted again and the proceedings began before the Varna Regional Court. In a judgment of 11 April 2006 the Varna Regional Court found the applicants guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced them to respectively four, seven and five years’ imprisonment. According to the relevant provision of the Criminal Code, the punishment for aggravated murder is fifteen to twenty years’ imprisonment, life imprisonment or life imprisonment without commutation. In determining the sentences, the Varna Regional Court specifically stated that for reasons not imputable to the applicants a period of fifteen years had elapsed between the date when the crime was committed and the issuing of the sentences, which amounted to an exceptional mitigating circumstance requiring an imposition of punishments below the statutory minimum. In a judgment of 6 July 2006 the Varna Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment.
In a final judgment of 17 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts’ judgments. In examining the issue about the fairness of the applicants’ punishments, the Supreme Court of Cassation stated that the lower courts had duly set the sentences below the statutory minimum, and that such punishments would have been disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime had there not been the presence of one exceptional mitigating circumstance, namely the long period that had lapsed between the date when the crime was committed and the sentencing of the applicants.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against them.
The applicants further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the outcome and alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against them.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
The Court considers that, pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.
B. Alleged violations related to the length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of effective domestic remedies
The applicants complain about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them. They rely on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, which provide in so far as relevant:
Article 6
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Government argued that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violations within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention because the domestic courts had explicitly recognised the excessive length of the proceedings and had provided adequate compensation by significantly reducing the applicants’ sentences.
The applicants considered that the length of the proceedings resulted in the issuing of unjust sentences.
The Court notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicants began on 30 September 1993 and ended on 17 April 2007. The proceedings thus lasted 13 years and 6 months for a pre-trial stage and three levels of jurisdiction.
According to the Court’s case‑law, mitigation of a sentence granted on account of the excessive length of proceedings may deprive the individual concerned of his or her status as a victim when the national authorities acknowledge in a sufficiently clear way the failure to observe the reasonable‑time requirement of Article 6 § 1 and afford redress by reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (see Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria, no. 48059/06 and 2708/09, § 64, 10 May 2010, with further references).
In the instant case, the Court observes that in its judgment of 11 April 2006 the Varna Regional Court expressly stated that for reasons not imputable to the applicants a period of fifteen years had elapsed between the date when the crime was committed and the issuing of the sentences, which obviously included the judicial pre-trial stage. The Court is satisfied that this ruling of the Varna Regional Court amounts to a sufficiently clear acknowledgment of the failure of the authorities to observe the reasonable‑time requirement of Article 6 § 1 as to judicial proceedings, that is from the initiation of judicial investigation to final determination.
As to the mitigation of the sentence, the Court observes that the courts went on to find that the length of the proceedings amounted to an exceptional mitigating circumstance requiring an imposition of punishments below the statutory minimum.
In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the domestic courts’ finding concerning the effect of the excessive length of the proceedings amounted to a primary ground to mitigate the sentences and had a decisive and measurable impact on them. The setting of the punishments below the statutory minimum therefore amounted to sufficient redress for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicants.
In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of violations of Article 6 § 1 within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
As regards the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court recalls that this provision guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000‑XI). In view of the Court’s conclusion above regarding the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, no arguable claims arise under that Article. Accordingly, the complaints under Article 13 are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
C. The other complaints raised by the applicants
Having carefully examined the applicants’ remaining complaints, having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that these parts of the 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;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy