FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1535/06
by Margarita Alexandrova MARKOVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
George Nicolaou, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 December 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Margarita Alexandrova Markova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Montana. She was not legally represented. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs N. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.
On 13 September 1999 the applicant brought proceedings, challenging her dismissal from work, claiming damages, and seeking to be reinstated. In a final judgment of 6 June 2005, the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s claims, finding that her dismissal had been lawful, because she did not meet the educational requirements to occupy the position in question.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings brought by her had been unreasonably lengthy and that the domestic courts had decided wrongly and had been partial in finding against her.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that the proceedings brought by her had lasted too long. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
By letter dated 7 June 2011, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration read as follows:
“... The Government hereby wish to express ... [their] acknowledgment of the failure of the excessive length of the civil (labour) proceedings ..., contrary to [Article] 6 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant – Margarita Alexandrova Markova the amount of EUR 900 which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses will be converted into Bulgarian [levs] at the exchange rate applicable at the time of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be chargeable ... It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the [Convention] ...
The Government, therefore, request that this application ... be struck out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 [§] 1 (c) of the Convention. ...”
The applicant did not comment on the Government’s declaration.
The Court observes that under Article 37 of the Convention 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 set out in subparagraphs (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 application.”
The Court also observes 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, (preliminary issue) [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’s case-law under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the right to a hearing within a reasonable time is well established (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII). It recently gave a pilot judgment dealing with the issue of unreasonable length of civil proceedings in Bulgaria (see Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, 10 May 2011).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.
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 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the civil proceedings.
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in so far as it concerns the length of the civil proceedings brought by the applicant.
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıGeorge Nicolaou
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy