FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43064/05
by Georgi Iliev ANTONOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 November 2005,
Having regard to the declaration of the respondent Government made with view to resolving the complaint about the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that respect and requesting the Court to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases,
Having regard to the applicant's comments on the Government's unilateral declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Georgi Iliev Antonov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Plovdiv. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Mrs K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 November 1999 criminal proceedings were opened concerning an incident with a pillar crane and the applicant, having been appointed as a leader of the crane's installation team, was questioned by the investigation authorities.
On 8 May 2000 charges were brought against him.
After several remittals of the case for further investigation and because of procedural breaches the final indictment was filed with the first instance court in April 2002.
On 29 May 2002 the Plovdiv Military Court decided to remit the case to the prosecution authorities so that charges are brought against one more individual. This decision was overturned by the Military Court of Appeals on 7 October 2002.
By a judgment of 3 September 2003 Plovdiv Military Court found the applicant guilty of causing death and a medium bodily harm as a result of exercise of dangerous activity without permit, sentenced him to a fine and ordered him to pay damages to the victims and their families.
This judgment was upheld by the Military Court of Appeals in a final judgment of 15 August 2005.
The courts found that the issue whether a start button in the crane control tower had been pressed which, according to the applicant, was the real cause of the incident, was irrelevant as the cause was clearly established by the commissioned experts' opinions. The cause was namely the lack of ensured stabilizing mechanisms, one of which negligently removed by the applicant, as well as mistakes made during the crane's installation, which was performed by non-authorised individuals. The courts did not grant the applicant's request to exempt him from criminal liability due to the fact that he had carried out a superior's order, finding that he was well aware himself of the breach of the relevant regulations.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 about the alleged excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
2. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that the delay of the authorities to conduct examination of the site of the incident obstructed the establishment of the cause thereof and that the courts refused to commission an expert's opinion and to gather evidence in that respect. He also contended that the domestic courts' judgments lacked sufficient reasoning and erred by not exempting him from criminal liability.
3. The applicant, invoking Article 6 § 1, complained that the criminal law was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable as there was no clear interpretation of what constituted a dangerous activity and negligent exercise thereof in the applicant's case.
THE LAW
A. Complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 about the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that respect
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
On 20 January 2010 the Court received a unilateral declaration from the Government made with a view to resolving the issues raised by this part of the application. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration, in particular, read:
“[...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] its acknowledgment of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved. At the same time, the Government admit that in the particular circumstances of the case the complaint about the length of the proceedings has not been redressed at the domestic level as required by Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the amount of [...] EUR 1,200 which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court's case law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian [levs] at the exchange rate applicable at the time of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicants. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the [Convention]. [...]
The Government, therefore, request that this application be struck out of the Court's list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention. [...]”
In his written reply dated 5 March 2010 the applicant requested the Court to continue examining the case.
The Court recalls that Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention enables it to strike a case out of its list where:
“[...] for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court also recalls that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
Having regard to the acknowledgements contained in the Government's declaration, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(c).
In view of its extensive and clear case law on length of criminal proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 23 September 2004, Balabanov v. Bulgaria, no. 70843/01, 3 July 2008 and Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria, nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05, 22 October 2009), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.
B. The remainder of the applicant's complaints
The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints as submitted by him. 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 they 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 must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration in respect of the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that respect and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy