FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5633/03
by Dimitar Ivanov VOSHTEV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2003,
Having regard to the correspondence with the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dimitar Ivanov Voshtev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Pomorie.
The facts of the case, as submitted by him, may be summarised as follows.
On 23 October 1995 the applicant was charged with bribery and abuse of office.
An investigation started. On 31 March 1998 the Burgas regional public prosecutor's office dropped the charges of bribery and partially discontinued the proceedings. The case was transferred to the Pomorie district public prosecutor's office.
On an unspecified date in 2000 that office filed an indictment against the applicant with the Pomorie District Court.
On 7 June 2001 the Pomorie District Court convicted the applicant for abuse of office and gave him a suspended prison sentence. On 11 February and 7 August 2002 the conviction and the sentence were upheld by the Burgas Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation, respectively.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably lengthy.
THE LAW
On 17 July 2007 the Court sent a letter to the applicant informing him that notice of the application had been given to the Government of Bulgaria and inviting him to express an opinion regarding a friendly-settlement proposal.
That letter was re-sent to the applicant, by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, on 23 January 2008, after it was established that due to a clerical error the previous letter had been sent to a wrong address. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The applicant signed the acknowledgment of receipt but did not respond to the letter.
By another letter of 16 May 2008, sent by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, the applicant was invited to state whether he maintained his application. He signed the acknowledgment of receipt on 3 June 2008 but did not reply to the letter.
The applicant's last communication to the Court is of 17 March 2003.
In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant has lost interest in the application and does not intend to pursue it, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
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 considers that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto, does not require the continued examination of the application.
Accordingly, it finds it appropriate to strike the case out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekRait Maruste
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy