FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5131/06
by Kostadin Ivanov SHEYTANOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 January 2006,
Having regard to the declaration of the respondent Government made with a view to resolving the complaints about the length of the proceedings for damages against the State, the excessive amount of the court fees in these proceedings and the partiality of the judges in the applicant's case and requesting the Court to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kostadin Ivanov Sheytanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in the Czech Republic. He is represented before the Court by Ms D. Cherkezova, a lawyer practising in Varna. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The criminal proceedings against the applicant and his pre-trial detention
An armed robbery was committed in the resort “Shkorpilovtsi”. On 1 August 1993 the applicant was charged and remanded in custody in this connection.
In a judgment of 20 December 1996 the Varna Regional Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment.
On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 11 April 1997.
In a final judgment of 26 November 1997 the extended panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation acquitted the applicant on some of the charges, upheld his conviction for the remainder and reduced his sentence to three years' imprisonment.
On 1 December 1997 the applicant was released from prison.
2. The alleged beating on 28 May 1996
Apparently, on 28 May 1996 during a fight with other prisoners, in which the guards in Varna prison also took part, the applicant received injuries and his eyesight was damaged. These injuries were allegedly inflicted by the prison guards. The applicant did not bring proceedings in relation to the above events.
3. The proceedings under the State Responsibility for Damage Act
On 20 November 2000 the applicant brought an action against the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the Varna Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation under the State Responsibility for Damage Act (the SMRDA, the Act's title having been amended later) seeking 150,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 75,000 euros (EUR) in damages stemming from his detention.
On 14 March 2003 the Shumen Regional Court found that as the applicant's detention pending the final judgment had exceeded his sentence by one year and four months, damages were due under item 6 of section 2(1) of the SMRDA. It ordered the defendants to pay the applicant jointly the amount of BGN 14,381.73 (approximately EUR 7,200). On 17 June 2003 the Regional Court amended its judgment awarding the applicant interest on the above amount.
On appeal, in a judgment of 14 January 2004 the Varna Court of Appeal reduced the amount of the award to BGN 7,000 (approximately EUR 3,500).
On 1 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal's judgment.
The courts further applied section 10 § 2 of the SMRDA and ordered the applicant to pay in total BGN 6,000 (approximately EUR 3,000) in court fees, which represented 4% of the dismissed part of the applicant's claims.
4. The enforcement of the judgment of 1 August 2005
On 13 October 2005 the Shumen Regional Court issued to the applicant a writ of execution for the interest on the amount of BGN 7,000.
On 18 October 2005, 24 and 27 January 2006 the applicant submitted requests for payment with the Supreme Judicial Council, the Varna Regional Court, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and the Supreme Court of Cassation.
In a letter of 10 February 2006 the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office replied that it could not effectuate the payments as the writ of execution had only been issued for the interest and not for the principal amount of the awarded damages.
On the same day the applicant requested the issuing of a new writ of execution, which was done on 13 March 2006.
On 23 and 28 March 2006 the applicant reiterated his request for payment.
On 11 October 2006 the applicant received part of the amount due.
On 23 March 2009 he received the rest of the awarded damages.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the proceedings for damages against the Sate had been excessively lengthy and that the final judgment, rendered in his favour, had not been executed for a lengthy period of time.
2. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the judges from the Supreme Court of Cassation had been partial because they had examined an action against the court they worked at.
3. The applicant complained that the awarded damages in the proceedings for damages against the State were insufficient as he had to pay excessive court fees.
4. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the global period of his detention pending trial between 1 August 1993 and 1 December 1997 had exceeded by one year, four months and five days the term of imprisonment to which he had been eventually sentenced.
5. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been of excessive length.
6. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as on 28 May 1996 he had been beaten by the guards in Varna prison.
THE LAW
A. The first three complaints of the applicant
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings for damages against the State, the delays in the execution of the final judgment rendered in these proceedings, the excessive court fees and the alleged partiality of the Supreme Court of Cassation.
On 28 April 2010 the Court received a unilateral declaration from the Government made with a view to resolving the issues raised by this part of the application. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration, in particular, read:
“[...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] acknowledgement of the violation of some of the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of Convention in the domestic proceedings for damages in which the applicant was involved. Thus, the Government acknowledges violations of the applicant's rights under Article 6 § 1 such as those found by the Court in its judgments in the cases of Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, ECHR 2007‑VIII (access to court), Mihalkov v. Bulgaria, no. 67719/01, 10 April 2008 (partiality) as well as a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the amount of [...] EUR 3,000 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 to the applicants. 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 unilateral declaration.
The Court recalls that Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention enables it to strike a case out of its list where:
“[...] for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
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 (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
Having regard to the acknowledgements contained in the Government's declaration, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the above complaints, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c).
In view of its extensive and clear case law in respect of the violation of the above mentioned guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of Convention, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006; Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008, Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, ECHR 2007‑VIII and Mihalkov v. Bulgaria, no. 67719/01, 10 April 2008), 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).
Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.
B. The remainder of the applicant's complaints
The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints as submitted by him. 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 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration concerning the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings, the excessive amount of the court fees and the partiality of the judges in the applicant's case and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsRait Maruste
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy