FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35386/07
Temenuzhka Minkova BANCHEVA and Penka Todorova BANCHEVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 August 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Temenuzhka Minkova Bancheva and Ms Penka Todorova Bancheva, are Bulgarian nationals who live in Sofia. The first applicant was born in 1961 and is represented before the Court by Mr N. Teoharov, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kotzeva of the Ministry of Justice.
The application was originally lodged on 3 August 2007 by the first applicant. In a letter to the Registry of 9 February 2009 the second applicant expressed her wish to join the proceedings. She also raised additional complaints.
On 3 November 2011 notice of the first applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the length of civil proceedings and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the impact of the length on her property rights was given to the Government and the parties were invited to secure a friendly settlement. The applicant did not reply to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 7 February 2012, sent by registered post, the first applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her position regarding the friendly-settlement proposal expired on 12 December 2011 and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
The letter was returned to the Court, unopened, on 9 March 2012 with the mention that the addressee had not claimed the letter at the post office.
THE LAW
1. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the first applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.
2. Having carefully examined the second applicant’s complaints in the light of all 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 should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the complaints raised by the first applicant;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy