FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8973/09
Rositsa Stoyanova VELINOVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
George Nicolaou,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 April 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 3 April 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Rositsa Stoyanova Velinova, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1958. She is currently in the Sliven Prison serving a sentence.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms R. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.
Relying on Article 34 of the Convention, the applicant in substance complained that the prison authorities had been opening and inspecting her correspondence.
The applicant stated that her correspondence had been repeatedly subject to inspection by the prison authorities. She submitted nine envelopes of incoming correspondence from Bulgarian and international bodies and human rights institutions, including three envelopes of letters sent to the applicant from the Registry of the Court, which were stamped as monitored by the prison authorities.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 3 April 2014 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 provided as follows:
“[...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] its acknowledgment of the interference with [the applicant’s] right to respect for correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant Ms Rositsa Stoyanova Velinova the [...] amount of 1,200 EUR which is to be considered reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. The sum referred to above, [...] is to cover any and all damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
The sum will be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of the list of cases. [...] The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
By a letter of 29 May 2014, the applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration as the amount proposed was not sufficient.
The Court further 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 application.”
It 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 found in a number of cases against Bulgaria that in monitoring all of the applicants’ correspondence, as was envisioned in Bulgarian legislation at the relevant time, the authorities had acted in violation of Article 8 (see Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, 22 May 2008; Konstantin Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 15035/03, 25 June 2009 and Radkov v. Bulgaria, no. 27795/03, 22 April 2010).
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 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 8 of the Convention 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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy