Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)168[1]
Zdravko Petrov against Bulgaria
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 20024/04, judgment of 23/06/2011, final on 23/09/2011)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)1059E);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment and noting that no award of just satisfaction was made by the Court in the present case (see document DH-DD(2012)1059E);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Action report on the execution of the judgment
Zdravko Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 20024/04)
Delivered on 23/06/2011
Final on 23/09/2011
This case concerns the failure of the state to comply with its obligations under article 34 of the Convention. The Court saw no justification for the competent authorities’refusal to provide the applicant with copies of documents related to criminal proceedings against him. In particular, the Court considered that the applicant should not have been required to prove to the authorities’ satisfaction that the above-mentioned documents had been specifically requested by the Court’s Registry. Therefore, the Court concluded that the authorities had interfered unjustifiably with the applicant’s right of individual petition and had thus failed to comply with their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention not to hinder the effective exercise of this right
The complaints under article 6 of the Convention were declared inadmissible.
1.Individual measures:
An amount of just satisfaction has not been awarded by the Court, as the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in proper form. Therefore, no individual measures seem necessary.
2.General measures
The Government considers that the violation of Article 34 of the Convention found in this case is an isolated one.
Therefore, a letter with concrete points concerning the interpretation and the application of Article 34 of the Convention concerning the effective enjoyment of the right to pursue and present a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights was sent to the president of the court directly concerned by the present case (the Ruse Regional Court). This measure would prevent any future infringements of similar nature.
The translation of the judgment will be available soon and will be published on the website of the Ministry of justice . It will be disseminated with circular letter to the interested stakeholders.
The Government considers that no further general measures are necessary at national level.
3.Conclusions
In view of the foregoing the government considers to have complied with its obligation under article 46 §1 of the Convention. Thus we are looking forward to the Committee’s decision to close the examination of this case.
Sofia, 12 September 2012
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy