FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15634/05
Mariyka Zhelyazkova DOBREVA against Bulgaria
and 7 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 March 2013 as a Committee composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the appended applications, communicated as part of the grouped communication in Dobreva and 11 other applications v. Bulgaria (no. 15634/05 and others),
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to the declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants are Bulgarian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the appended table. Some of the applicants were legally represented. The legal representatives involved were Mr G. Kerelov, Mr M. Ekimdzhiev, Ms K. Boncheva, Mr T. Valchev, Ms T. Prokopieva‑Krasteva and Mr R. Dishovski. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complained about the length of civil proceedings, and in some cases under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of effective remedies in relation to the length. These parts of the applications had been communicated to the Government.
The essential information as to the length of the proceedings in which the applicants were involved is indicated in the attached table.
Some applicants also raised additional complaints.
THE LAW
The Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters dated 15 November 2012 and 16 November 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. By these declarations the Government acknowledged the excessive length of the civil proceedings and, in some cases, the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length and offered the applicants various compensation sums (for the sums, see the appended table).
The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases. They suggested that the declarations might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the cases of the Court’s list, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The declarations also provided that the compensation sums were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as, costs and expenses, where applicable, and would be free of any taxes that may be chargeable, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The sums 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them 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.
When invited to submit comments in reply to the Government’s unilateral declarations, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations on various grounds or did not provide any comments.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications”.
The Court also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Bulgaria, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in civil proceedings (see as recent authorities Nikolov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 44184/05, 22250/06 and 37182/07, 21 February 2012 and Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, §§ 93-96, no. 37346/05, 10 May 2011, with further references).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list in so far as they concern the excessive length of the civil proceedings, and the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length.
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
Having carefully examined the applicants’ remaining complaints, having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that these parts of the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and in some cases under Article 13 in relation to the applicants’ complaints concerning length of proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they relate to the above complaints, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıDavid Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant’s name, year of birth, place of residence
Beginning and end of the domestic proceedings
Subject matter of domestic proceedings
Length of proceedings and instances concerned
Communicated complaints
Date of Government’s unilateral declaration
Compensation sums offered by the Government
(in euros)
1.
15634/05
04/04/2005
Mariyka Zhelyazkova DOBREVA
1951
Pazardzhik
1)First set of proceedings
21/05/1998-
10/01/2005
2)Second set of proceedings
12/1999-
4/10/2004
1)Labour dispute
(disciplinary proceedings)
2) Labour dispute
(dismissal)
1) 6 years and 7 months (three levels of jurisdiction)
2) 4 years and 10 months (three levels of jurisdiction)
Pending before the Supreme Court of Cassation (“the SCC”) for 2 years and 4 months
Art. 6 § 1
(length of proceedings)
16 November 2012
900
2.
22316/06
23/05/2006
Kancho Stanev KRASTEV
1954
Yambol
06/2003-18/12/2006
Labour dispute
3 years, and 6 months (three levels of jurisdiction)
Pending before the SCC for 2 years and 8 months
Art. 6 § 1
(length of proceedings)
Art. 13
(lack of effective remedies in respect of length)
15 November 2012
600
3.
6194/07
11/01/2007
Lilyana Stefanova ANGELOVA
1954
Sofia
Unspecified but no later than 8 October 2001-
11/07/2006
Labour dispute
about 4 years and 9 months
(three levels of jurisdiction)
Pending before the SCC for 2 years and 7 months
Art. 6 § 1
(length of proceedings)
Art. 13
(lack of effective remedies in respect of length)
15 November 2012
1100
4.
19298/07
19/04/2007
Milka Ivanova TODOROVA
1950
Varna
26/07/2002-
28/11/2006
Labour dispute
4 years and 4 months (three levels of jurisdiction)
Pending before the SCC for 2 years and 9 months
Art. 6 § 1
(length of proceedings)
Art. 13
(lack of effective remedies in respect of length)
16 November 2012
1100
5.
7666/08
20/12/2007
Stanyu Mitev STANEV
1948
Ruse
2/12/2003-
10/07/2007
Labour dispute
3 years and 7 months (three levels of jurisdiction)
Pending before the SCC for 2 years, 10 months
Art. 6 § 1
(length of proceedings)
Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length)
15 November 2012
1100
6.
51280/08
03/10/2008
Nina Rashkova UZUNOVA
1951
Sofia
27/05/2004-
22/05/2008
Labour dispute
3 years and 11 months
(three levels of jurisdiction)
Pending before the SCC for 2 years and 11 months
Art. 6 § 1
(length of proceedings)
16 November 2012
600
7.
22736/09
20/01/2009
Ivan Peychev
IVANOV
1938
Chirpan
unidentified date after 06/2002-
25/07/2008
Labour dispute
6 years (three levels of jurisdiction)
Pending before the SCC for about 2 years
and 10 months
Art. 6 § 1
(length of proceedings)
15 November 2012
800
8.
34540/09
07/05/2009
Galimir Kolev GEORGIEV
1963
Ruse
unidentified date in 12/2003-
06/11/2008
Labour dispute
about 4 years, 11 months,
(three levels of jurisdiction)
Pending before the SCC for about 3 years
Art. 6 § 1
(length of proceedings)
16 November 2012
1100
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy