FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42025/04
by Ivan Bogoev BOGOEV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 August 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application lodged with the Court on 16 November 2004 by Mr Ivan Bogoev Bogoev, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Plovdiv. He was represented before the Court by Ms S. Stefanova, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
On 19 May 2008 the Court communicated the application with its complaints concerning the alleged excessive length and the lack of effective remedies in regards to the criminal proceedings against the applicant that had lasted from 1996 to 2004.
On 8 July 2008 (reconfirmed by the applicant on 18 May 2009) and 30 April 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Bulgaria in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 4,900 euros. This sum, which would cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant. It would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the case.
THE LAW
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
As to an expressed preference by the applicant concerning the repartition of the amount to be paid by the Government between him and his legal representative, the Court considers this to be an internal matter between them.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy