FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 3503/06
by Maria Panayotova FILEVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 January 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Maria Panayotova Fileva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Asenovgrad. She is represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev, Ms K. Boncheva and Ms G. Chernicherska, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 June 1999 the applicant, at that time an employee of the Ministry of Agriculture, was questioned on suspicion of abuse of office.
Criminal proceedings were instituted soon afterwards, on 6 July 1999. On 16 May 2001 the applicant was charged.
In 2004, for undisclosed reasons, the case was placed in a special register of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.
The investigation against the applicant continued until 29 June 2005.
On 14 July 2005 the Plovdiv regional public prosecutor's office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant after reaching the conclusion that she had not committed any offence.
On 25 November 2005 the applicant brought an action for damages against the prosecution authorities for wrong accusation. The course of these proceedings is not clear.
On 23 March 2006 a prosecutor from the Plovdiv appellate public prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 14 July 2005 and ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be resumed and that further evidence be gathered. He did not refer to any newly discovered evidence; instead, he indicated that a review of the case had been ordered by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.
The investigation against the applicant was resumed and on 16 January 2007 she was indicted on two counts of abuse of office.
On 10 October 2007 the Plovdiv Regional Court convicted the applicant as indicted and gave her a suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment. In determining the punishment, it mentioned, in particular, that the delay in the proceedings at the pre-trial stage represented a mitigating circumstance.
On 10 April and 11 July 2008 respectively, the Plovdiv Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the conviction in so far as it concerned one count of abuse of office but acquitted the applicant on the other count. They reduced the applicant's sentence to a suspended term of one year's imprisonment.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 237 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974, in force at the relevant time, provided for the termination of criminal proceedings by the prosecution in cases, inter alia, where it had transpired that no offence had been committed.
By virtue of Article 237 § 3 of the Code, any decision of the prosecution to terminate criminal proceedings was subject to appeal before the courts by the accused or the victim of the alleged offence. The courts were competent to uphold or quash the decision terminating the proceedings or to amend the grounds for termination. The existence of a final court ruling upholding a decision of the prosecution to terminate criminal proceedings was an absolute obstacle to prosecuting the same person for the same offence (Article 21 § 1 of the Code).
Any decision under Article 237 § 1 of the Code, which had not been appealed against before the courts could be quashed by the relevant higher-ranking prosecution office of its own motion at any time before the prosecution became time-barred (Article 237 § 7 of the Code).
2. State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act of 1988
Section 2 of this Act provides that the State shall be liable in cases where, inter alia, the claimant has been charged and subsequently acquitted or where the criminal proceedings have been terminated on the ground that no offence has been committed.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the resumption of the criminal proceedings against her, by virtue of the decision of the Plovdiv appellate public prosecutor's office of 23 March 2006, had deprived her of access to a court to seek damages for having been wrongly accused. She argued that the proceedings had been resumed in retaliation to her bringing an action for damages. Furthermore, she considered that as she had brought an action for damages for having been wrongly accused, the criminal courts who examined the accusations against her had had an interest in convicting her, because otherwise the judicial authorities would have remained liable to pay damages.
2. The applicant also complained, relying on Articles 13 and 34 of the Convention, that the resumption of the proceedings had been aimed at exercising pressure on her because of her intention to lodge an application with the Court.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against her had lasted for an unreasonably long time and that the domestic courts had wrongly convicted her. Lastly, she complained under Article 13 of the Convention that she had had no effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that she was deprived of access to a court to seek damages from the prosecution and that the criminal courts which had examined the accusations against her had been impartial as they had had an interest in convicting her.
The Court considers that the complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal ...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints 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.
2. 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 are 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 complaint concerning her access to a court to seek damages from the prosecution and the impartiality of the courts examining the accusations against her;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
Section RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy