FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 41348/98
by Ali KASTRATI
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 November 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar, and Mr S. Neilsen, Deputy Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 March 1998 and registered on25 May 1998,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to its partial decision of 29 June 2000,
Having regard to the letter of the Government of 2 November 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Yugoslav national, born in 1976. He is represented before the Court by Mr Anatol-Vesel Lukanov, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The respondent Government are represented by their agent, Mrs Violina Djidjeva, Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date in December 1997 the applicant, together with other persons, crossed the Yugoslav-Bulgarian border illegally and entered Bulgaria.
On 29 December 1997 the applicant was arrested by the Bulgarian authorities. He submits that he surrendered voluntarily. The applicant was charged under Section 279 § 1 of the Penal Code for having crossed the border illegally and was detained on remand.
On 30 December 1997 the applicant’s lawyer appealed to the Sofia District Court against his client’s detention on remand. In accordance with the legal requirements and the established practice, he filed the appeal through the District Prosecutor’s Office.
Having noted that the District Prosecutor’s Office had not transmitted the appeal to the District Court, on 13 February 1998 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.
On 25 February 1998 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office instructed the District Prosecutor’s Office to transmit immediately the applicant’s appeal against his detention to the competent court.
On 27 February 1998 the District Court examined the appeal at an oral hearing, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer. The applicant’s lawyer argued, inter alia, that the charges against his client did not concern a grave crime, that he had surrendered voluntarily and had a permanent address in Yugoslavia, that he did not have a criminal record and that his only motive had been to see his Bulgarian girlfriend.
On the same day the District Court refused to release the applicant. It found that there was a clear danger of absconding in view of the fact that the applicant was a foreign national who had entered the country illegally and whose passport was not valid.
According to information from the applicant’s lawyer, on an unspecified date the applicant was released and left Bulgaria.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that his appeal against the lawfulness of his detention was not examined speedily. He also invokes Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
By letter of 2 November 2000 the Government’s agent informed the Court that on 30 October 2000 the parties had reached a friendly settlement. She enclosed its text, signed by her and the applicant’s lawyer. The document stated, inter alia, that the Government would disseminate information about the case and would adopt a methodology permitting to identify officials responsible for human rights violations. The document further stated that the applicant would withdraw his application and that the parties put an end to the dispute.
The Court finds that the applicant has apparently lost an interest in pursuing his application. By reference to Article 37 §§ 1(a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the case should be struck out of its list of cases. The Court finds no particular reasons concerning respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which would require further examination of the present application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
For these reasons, the Court by a majority
Decides to strike out of its list of cases the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy