FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 55057/00
by Valentin Kotzev SIDJIMOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 28 July 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Bulgarian national, born in 1973 and living in Pazardzhik.
He is represented before the Court by Mr Valeri Stoyanov, a lawyer practising in Pazardzhik.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:
In August 1992 the applicant was interrogated as a suspect in the rape of a minor.
On 19 August 1993 he was arrested, charged with rape and remanded in custody.
On unspecified dates the investigator in charge interrogated the alleged victim and another accused person and heard several experts.
At the end of 1995 the applicant was released on bail. Since then the investigator has not undertaken any steps to finalise the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
In 1999 the applicant’s lawyer repeatedly lodged requests with the Sofia District Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Sofia City Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office complaining of the length of the criminal proceedings and seeking their termination as the evidence against him was allegedly weak.
On 26 July 1999 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office transmitted one of the complaints of the applicant’s lawyer to the Sofia City Public Prosecutor’s Office. There is no information about any other steps undertaken by the competent authorities.
As of 14 January 2000 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending at the preliminary investigation stage.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him have lasted unreasonably long. He submits, relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, that as a result he was under a constant psychological pressure and was deprived of an effective protection of his reputation.
The applicant also complains under Article 13 that he has no effective domestic remedy against the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and the alleged lack of an effective remedy in this respect. He submits that he was suffering as a result and that his reputation was damaged.
The Court considers that the above complaints fall to be examined under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
It observes that the time-limit for the submission of the Government’s written observation on the admissibility and merits of the application was twice extended and that no observations have been received.
The Court further considers that the complaints raise serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application admissible, without prejudicing the merits of the case.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy