FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15650/06
Ivan Hristov KOSEKOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Robert Spano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 March 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties after the Court invited them to do so on 12 July 2013,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ivan Hristov Kosekov, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1935 and lives in Sofia.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms V. Hristova and Ms R. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Between 21 November 2000 and 17 October 2005 the applicant was a party to a labour dispute, which lasted four years and ten months for three levels of jurisdiction.
Between 6 May 1996 and 6 March 2006 the applicant was a party to civil proceedings for unlawful enrichment which lasted nine years and ten months for three levels of jurisdiction.
B. Relevant domestic law
Provisions concerning remedies for length of proceedings
The relevant provisions concerning the remedies for length of proceedings available under domestic law have been summarised in the Court’s recent decisions in the cases of Balakchiev and Others v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 65187/10, §§ 18-37, 18 June 2013) and Valcheva and Abrashev v. Bulgaria ((dec.), nos. 6194/11 and 34887/11, §§ 47-66, 18 June 2013).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complained about the length of the two sets of civil proceedings in which he was a party.
The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the outcome of both sets of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the two sets of civil proceedings. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letter dated 16 May 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application.
After the Court invited the parties, by letter of 12 July 2013, to make additional observations on the complaint at issue in connection with the new remedies concerning length of proceedings introduced in Bulgarian law in 2012, the Government argued that the remedies at issue had retroactive effect and that their scope included all applications pending before the Court.
In his comments on the matter the applicant submitted inter alia that it could be considered that his case pending before the Court fulfils the conditions laid down in Bulgarian law and that therefore he could exhaust the new remedies. In that respect he informed the Court that he had already submitted an application for compensation before the Inspectorate attached to the Supreme Judicial Council. He further requested from the Court to await the response by the Inspectorate and only then to examine his application.
The Court recalls that in its recent decisions in the cases of Balakchiev and Others, §§ 53-85, and Valcheva and Abrashev, §§ 92-124, both cited above, it found that the remedies at issue, under sections 60a et seq. of the Judiciary Act 2007 and section 2b of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988, could be regarded as effective remedies in respect of the allegedly unreasonable length of proceedings. It found further that the remedies at issue were also available to applicants who had lodged their applications with the Court before the remedies’ introduction because in such situations the six-month time-limit under the remedies ran from the moment when the applicants are notified that their applications to the Court have been declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
It follows from the above that the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
2. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the outcome of both sets of civil proceedings.
The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by the applicant. Having regard to all the material 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 this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy