FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 42953/06
by Kamelia Aleksandrova CHERVENYAKOVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 October 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Kamelia Aleksandrova Chervenyakova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 31 January 1997 the investigator opened a preliminary investigation against the applicant in connection with a theft. On 10 April 1997 the district prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. On 4 June 1997 the National Security Service informed the investigator that on 29 January 1997 the applicant had left the country, flying to the Republic of South Africa.
On 4 November 1997 the prosecutor stayed the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not been found.
According to the applicant she learned about the proceedings in September 2000, apparently in relation with her request to the Bulgarian consulate in Pretoria for a new passport. She was informed about the refusal to issue her a passport on 4 December 2000.
On 22 November 2001, after the applicant’s lawyer had asked for the proceedings to be continued, the district court revoked the prosecutor’s order of 4 November 1997 and transferred the case to the prosecutor for further investigation.
In the period February 2002 – October 2003 the investigation was concluded three times and sent to the prosecutor who on each occasion remitted it with instructions for further investigation.
On 27 January 2004 the applicant’s lawyer filed a request under Article 239a of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974 (CCP) to the Sofia City Court to speed up the proceedings.
On 27 May 2004 the prosecutor brought an indictment to the Sofia City Court.
Between October 2004 and October 2006 the court held seven hearings. It postponed one as an expert and witnesses had failed to appear, and another because the applicant’s second lawyer could not attend. Two hearings were postponed as a result of witnesses not being properly summoned and another two because the whereabouts of witnesses were not known.
On 15 November 2006 the court held another hearing and on the same day delivered its judgment, finding the applicant not guilty. The prosecutor appealed. The Sofia Appellate Court held a hearing on 23 April 2007 and on 11 May 2007 upheld the lower court’s judgment.
2. The proceedings in relation to the non-issuance of a Bulgarian passport
On 31 January 1997 the investigator sent a proposal to the Ministry of Internal Affairs to impose a measure ‘not to issue a Bulgarian passport’ on the applicant on the ground that a preliminary investigation had been opened against her, her whereabouts were unknown, and she intended to leave the country. On an unspecified date the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued an order in this respect.
On 4 December 2000 the applicant, who was in South Africa, was informed of the refusal of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to provide her with a passport because of pending criminal proceedings against her. The applicant apparently never appealed against the refusal before the court.
On 6 December 2001 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to lift the prohibition on issuing a passport, which was sent to the prosecutor as the competent authority. On 25 March 2002 the prosecutor imposed a ‘prohibition to leave the country’ on the applicant under the new provision of Article 153a of CCP, stating that during the time the proceedings had been dormant, the applicant might have returned to Bulgaria, that she was accused of the commission of a serious crime and up until that moment she had absconded. On the basis of the prosecutor’s order, the Ministry of Internal Affairs imposed a new prohibition on issuing of a passport and revoked the earlier one.
On 19 May 2004, in reply to a request from the applicant, the prosecutor refused to lift the prohibition to leave the country on the ground that the applicant had left Bulgaria soon after the alleged commission of the crime and until that moment had absconded.
Between June 2005 - September 2005 and April 2006 – October 2006 the applicant sent a number of requests to the prosecution, complaining, among other things, of non-issue of Bulgarian documents and asking for the revocation of the detention order.
On 17 October 2006 the court revoked the detention order and the prohibition on leaving the country.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the criminal proceedings against her.
2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 3 (d) that the court refused to examine some of her witnesses.
3. The applicant further complains that she was not issued with a Bulgarian passport, invoking in substance Article 8 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings
The applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against her.
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides, as relevant:
“In the determination of ..., any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
B. The remainder of the applicant’s complaints
The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints as submitted by her. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were 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
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of the criminal proceedings (Article 6 § 1);
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy