FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22124/02
by Miroslav Dimitrov YAKIMOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Ms C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 May 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Miroslav Dimitrov Yakimov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Pordim. He is represented before the Court by Mr Y. Grozev and Mr B. Boev, lawyers practising in Sofia.
The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kotzeva, of the Ministry of Justice.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant had a previous conviction for theft for which on 4 June 1991 he had been given a suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment.
1. The investigation stage of the proceedings
On 10 January 1993 the owner of a scrap recycling centre filed a complaint with the police as he had established that someone had broken into his centre during the night and had stolen three sacks of copper wire, a three-meter long pipe, a micrometer, a calibre-gauge, two roosters and a hen.
On 11 January 1993 a complaint was filed by another individual that on 9 January 1993 one of his pigs had been stolen from his pigsty, but that he had found the animal slaughtered at a neighbour’s house and that the neighbour had told him that the applicant had brought it there together with another person (the “co-accused”).
On the same day, the police seized sixty three kilograms of copper wire from another recycling centre, which it had purchased from the applicant and the co-accused. The police also seized a thirteen kilogramme copper pipe from an individual who indicated that it had been brought to him by the co-accused.
On an unspecified date, the applicant was arrested and questioned by the police in connection with the robberies. He confessed to the robberies and signed a written statement to that affect. The applicant was then released.
A preliminary investigation in respect of the robberies was opened on 30 March 1993 against the applicant and the co-accused.
On 1 June 1993 the applicant was charged with having committed several, unspecified robberies in the month of January 1993 and a restriction was placed on him not to leave his place of residence without the authorisation of the Prosecutor’s Office.
Following further investigations the charges against the applicant were amended on 9 December 1996 and he was questioned. He essentially confirmed his previously given confession.
The co-accused passed away on 18 August 1999.
In a decision of 10 October 2000 the criminal proceedings against the co‑accused were terminated, which was confirmed by the Pleven District Court on 16 October 2000.
In a decision of 3 November 2000 the District Prosecutor’s Office remitted the case with instructions for concluding the investigation.
On 13 November 2000 the applicant was questioned and signed another statement confessing to the robberies.
An indictment was entered against the applicant on 9 February 2001 for having committed the robberies on 9 and 10 January 1993 and for having stolen sixty three kilograms of copper wire, a calibre-gauge, a micrometer, thirteen kilograms of thick copper wire, two roosters, a hen and a pig, with a total value of 43,084 old Bulgarian levs (approximately 22 Euros on the date of the indictment).
2. The trial stage of the proceedings
The Pleven District Court conducted three hearings between 28 May and 22 November 2001.
In a judgment of 22 November 2001 it found the applicant guilty of having committed the robberies on 9 and 10 January 1993 and of having stolen sixty three kilograms of copper wire, thirteen kilograms of thick copper wire, two roosters, a hen and a pig, with a total value of 31,724 old Bulgarian levs (approximately 17 Euros on the date of the judgment). The court acquitted the applicant of having stolen a calibre-gauge and a micrometer. The Pleven District Court sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment and also enforced the previously suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment dating from 1991.
The applicant did not appeal against the judgment and it became final.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because the authorities did not provide him with free legal assistance. He submitted that he did not have the means to retain counsel and that he was not aware or adequately informed of the possibility to request one to be provided to him free of charge by the authorities.
2. The applicant further complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the alleged lack of effective remedies to speed them up.
THE LAW
On 3 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s lead counsel:
“I, Yonko Miladinov Grozev, lawyer, note that the Government of Bulgaria are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 5,200 euros to Mr Miroslav Dimitrov Yakimov with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, EUR 4,400 of which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 is for costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. These amounts will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the judgment by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights, whereby EUR 4,400 will be disbursed to Mr Miroslav Dimitrov Yakimov while EUR 800 will be transferred, in two equal instalments of EUR 400, directly into the bank accounts of his lawyers, Mr Boiko Boev and me. From the expiry of the above‑mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Bulgaria in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.
This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicant have reached.
I further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after delivery of the Court’s judgment.”
On 26 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government, which had been approved by the Council of Ministers of Bulgaria with Decision no. 432 of 22 June 2007 and had been signed by their Agent, Ms M. Kotzeva, of the Ministry of Justice:
“The Government of Bulgaria hereby offer to pay ex gratia 5,200 euros (EUR) to Mr Miroslav Dimitrov Yakimov with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, EUR 4,400 of which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 is for costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. These amounts will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the judgment by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights, whereby EUR 4,400 will be disbursed to Mr Miroslav Dimitrov Yakimov, while EUR 800 will be transferred, in two equal instalments of EUR 400, directly into the bank accounts of his lawyers, Mr Yonko Miladinov Grozev and Mr Boiko Boev. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy