FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2404/06
Antoaneta Lyubenova PERPELIEVA against Bulgaria
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 October 2012 as a Committee composed of:
George Nicolaou, President,
Ledi Bianku,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the appended applications, communicated as part of the grouped communication in Perpelieva and 14 other applications v. Bulgaria (no. 2404/06 and others),
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply 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 I. Yanev, Mr M. Ekimdzhiev, Ms K. Boncheva, Ms G. Chernicherska and Ms D. Bankova-Ganeva. 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 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the lack of effective remedies in relation to the length and about the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights. 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 a letter dated 6 July 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 the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights 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, one of the applicants accepted the compensation proposed. The other applicants either disagreed with the declarations on various grounds and requested the Court to pursue the examination of their cases 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 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, 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).
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, for example, 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, the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length and the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights.
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 in the light of all 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 these parts of the applications should 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 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 under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in relation to the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights;
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 AracıGeorge Nicolaou
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.
2404/06
22/12/2005
Antoaneta Lyubenova PERPELIEVA
1947
Sofia
11/1993 –
28/07/2005 (date on which the judgment became final)
Rei-vindicatio proceedings
11 years and 8 months
(3 levels of jurisdiction)
Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length)
6 July 2012
4,500
2.
38953/06
18/09/2006
Velichka Kostadinova ZHECHEVA
1935
Asenovgrad
Yordanka Kirilova KOLEVA
1954
Asenovgrad
14/07/1998 (date on which the applicants joined the criminal proceedings as civil claimants) –
20/12/2006 (date on which the judgment in the proceedings became final)
Civil claimants in criminal proceedings seeking compensation for the death of their husband and father
8 years, 5 months
(2 levels of jurisdiction)
Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length)
6 July 2012
4,100
3.
40289/06
02/10/2006
Svetlana Ivanova
PENEVA-GOLOGACHEVA
1949
Kurdzhali
11/2000 – 28/06/2006
Labour dispute - dismissal
5 years and 7 months
(3 levels of jurisdiction)
Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
6 July 2012
1,000
4.
31194/07
29/06/2007
Velichka Stoyanova DIMOVA-GANEVA
1948
Razgrad
19/11/1998 – 19/01/2007
Labour dispute - dismissal
8 years and 2 months
(3 levels of jurisdiction)
Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
6 July 2012
2,100
5.
32643/07
20/06/2007
Slavi Kirilov KRASHEVSKI
1945
Sofia
19/10/2000 – 26/02/2007
Disciplinary proceedings against a notary
6 years and 4 months
(2 levels of jurisdiction)
Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length)
Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (impact of length on property rights)
6 July 2012
1,900
6.
39687/07
29/08/2007
Krastyo Genov DUNCHEV
1976
Sofia
14/08/2000 – 31/07/2008
Civil proceedings for damages from a traffic accident
7 years and 11 months
(2 levels of jurisdiction)
Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length)
6 July 2012
3,300
7.
41520/07
04/09/2007
Valentina Stefanova DIMITROVA
1953
Shumen
28/06/2001 – 20/03/2007
Civil proceedings for damages from a traffic accident
5 years, 8 months
(3 levels of jurisdiction)
Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
6 July 2012
600
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy