FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 28196/04
by BZNS (Edinen)
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 March 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2004,
Having regard to the partial decision of 2 December 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, the Bulgarian Agrarian People’s Union (United) (BZNS (Edinen) or “the applicant party”), is a Bulgarian political party. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
During the communist period in Bulgaria, there existed only two political parties, the Bulgarian Communist Party and the Bulgarian Agrarian People’s Union (BZNS). In 1990, after the fall of the communist regime, BZNS went through transformations which culminated in setting up a new party under the same name. Its head office address was one of the elements reported at its registration on the Sofia City Court’s register.
On 12 August 1991 the Sofia City Court registered a new name of the party, BZNS (Edinen).
On 13 May 1991 the State brought an action for unjust enrichment before the Sofia City Court against the applicant party. The State claimed that in the period between 1957 and 1989 BZNS, having been a part of the totalitarian State, had been receiving money from the state budget without any legal ground.
In December 1991 Parliament adopted legislation which provided for the nationalisation of the property of parties and associations from the communist period, among which BZNS. The legislation explicitly referred to the applicant party, BZNS (Edinen), as a successor of BZNS.
Meanwhile, the court listed the first hearing in the proceedings brought by the State for 25 March 1992.
Between March 1992 and May 1993 the court held nine hearings where it identified the respondent to the proceedings and collected evidence. The applicant party participated in the proceedings represented by counsel. The hearing of 26 May 1993 was adjourned as the applicant party’s counsel expressed concerns before the court as to the actual existence of his client. He pointed to the fact that for a certain period of time the applicant party had been engaged in negotiations with other parties with a view of future unification. The court instructed the plaintiff to check whether the applicant party still existed.
Between 1992 and 1997 the applicant party changed its address at least on two occasions. The first change, which most probably took place in the second half of 1993, was not reported to the Sofia City Court’s register. The second change in the address took place in 1997 but was reported to the Sofia City Court’s register only in March 2001.
Between June 1993 and November 1999 the court held a number of hearings, which were adjourned as the applicant party could not be summoned and the plaintiff requested to check whether the respondent still existed. The court made a number of attempts to summon the applicant party at the address, recorded at the Sofia City Court’s register, but to no avail. In December 1998 the court was informed by the bureau in charge of serving summonses that the applicant party had left its reported address several years before. The court also attempted to summon the applicant at addresses indicated by the plaintiff and it appears that at least on one occasion the summons was successfully served on the applicant party but nevertheless it failed to appear before the court.
In the final hearing on 24 November 1999 the court decided to act on the basis of the presumption that the applicant party had been properly summoned although not found at the reported address and to proceed with a judgment.
By a judgment of 18 January 2000 the Sofia City Court dismissed the State’s action, finding that the applicant party’s predecessor received the disputed amounts lawfully.
On 25 September 2000 the State filed an appeal against the judgment before the Sofia Appellate Court.
It appears that until January 2002 the court made efforts to serve a copy of the State’s appeal on the applicant party but to no avail. As the applicant party had not been found at its address, reported in March 2001, by a decision of 24 January 2002 the court decided to act on the basis of the presumption that the respondent had been properly served although not found at the reported address and to proceed with the examination of the case.
Between May 2002 and February 2004 the court held four hearings. Three of them were adjourned on the ground of improper summoning of the applicant party. The applicant party was apparently represented at the last hearing. It also made written submissions.
In a judgment of 20 February 2004 the Sofia Appellate Court annulled the judgment of 18 January 2000 and discontinued the proceedings. The court found that the State did not have juridical interest to bring such a claim as all of the applicant party’s property had been nationalised in December 1991.
On 10 March 2004 the applicant party filed a request before the Appellate Court for an additional ruling on the costs and expenses. By a decision of 23 March 2004, upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 8 June 2004, the court ruled that costs and expenses were to be borne by the State.
B. Relevant domestic law
At the material time the Sofia City Court maintained a register of political parties. Every political party was under the obligation to report, inter alia, its current head office address to the register at the time of its registration and in case of subsequent changes (section 10 of the Political Parties Act 1990 and section 8 of the Political Parties Act 2001). This provision was reproduced almost identically in the new Political Parties Act 2005.
In accordance with the relevant rules the parties to civil proceedings were under the duty to inform the court about any changes of their address. In case of failure to do so, the presumption was that the summonses and other relevant documents had been properly served on the party (Article 51 §§ 1 and 2 in relation to Article 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1952). These provisions were reproduced almost verbatim in the new Code of Civil Procedure of 2007.
COMPLAINT
The applicant party complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant party’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 relates to the length of the proceedings. The period to be taken into consideration did not begin to run on 13 May 1991 but only on 7 September 1992, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Bulgaria. It ended on 8 June 2004 when the issue of costs was determined with final effect (see Maria Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 10905/04, § 18, 18 March 2010). It thus lasted approximately eleven years and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction.
The Government submitted, inter alia, that the applicant party had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies because it had not filed a “complaint about delays”. The Court considers that it need not decide on this issue as the complaint is in any event manifestly ill-founded for the following reasons.
The applicant’s position was that the authorities were responsible for the delays in the proceedings as it was their duty to summon the parties. The Government disagreed. In their view the applicant party was responsible for the fact that the authorities’ efforts to summon it were unsuccessful.
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
The point in issue in the present case is whether the difficulties in securing the participation of the applicant party’s representative and the ensuing delay were imputable to the authorities or the applicant party, in whole or in part.
In this respect the Court observes that in accordance with the relevant law, the applicant party was under the duty to report changes of address in a timely manner to the Sofia City Court’s register of political parties. It failed to do so when it changed its address in 1993 and reported the 1997 change of address only in 2001.
Furthermore, in breach of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant party also failed to inform the court examining the civil proceedings against it of its changes of address, notwithstanding its full knowledge of the proceedings in which it was involved.
As a result, between June 1993 and March 2001 the authorities’ active efforts to summon the applicant party remained unsuccessful.
In addition, at least on one occasion the applicant party was properly summoned but failed to appear before the court. Moreover, it appears that between May 1993 and the beginning of 2004 the applicant party never inquired about the course of the proceedings.
In these circumstances, the Court finds it established that a delay of nearly eight years, possibly more, was imputable exclusively to the applicant party.
In view of that, the Court concludes that the authorities cannot be held responsible for the excessive duration of the proceedings.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıLech Garlicki
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy