British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
KARAGYOZOV v. BULGARIA - 65051/01 [2007] ECHR 865 (25 October 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/865.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 865
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF KARAGYOZOV v. BULGARIA
(Application
no. 65051/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25
October 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Karagyozov v. Bulgaria,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V.
Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R.
Maruste,
Mr M. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C.
Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 65051/01) against the
Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Bulgarian national, Mr Veselin
Asenov Karagyozov (“the applicant”), on 7 December 2000.
The
applicant was represented by Mr M. Ekimdjiev and Mrs S. Stefanova,
lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs
M. Karadjova, of the Ministry of Justice.
On
13 October 2005 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Plovdiv.
A. The preliminary investigation
On
20 June 1997 the applicant and five other persons were charged with
theft and questioned. The charges concerned the theft from a
warehouse of 310 kg of nickel worth approximately 3,000 US dollars.
The applicant was ordered not to leave his place of residence without
authorisation from the Prosecutor's Office.
On
20 June, 17 July and 3 September 1997 witnesses were questioned. On
29 July 1997 the investigator carried out a confrontation between the
applicant and another co-accused. Between July and October 1997 he
ordered a fingerprint expert report, a report on the value of the
stolen objects and a psychiatric expert report. The reports were
submitted in October 1997. On 24 October 1997 the proceedings were
terminated with respect to one of the co-accused on grounds of his
mental disease.
In
April and May 1998 the investigator made modifications to the
charges. The applicant and the other accused persons were informed of
the new charges and questioned. On 10 April 1998 another psychiatric
expert report on the mental condition of the co-accused Mr M. was
ordered. The report was submitted on 27 April 1998.
The
results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the
applicant on 26 May 1998. The case file was transmitted to the
Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office on 29 May 1998.
On
21 July 1998 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office submitted to
the Plovdiv District Court a bill of indictment against the applicant
and two other persons (Mr D. and Mr G.). The prosecutor also issued a
decision terminating the proceedings against the other persons
involved. Mr G.'s ensuing appeal was never examined.
B. The trial
The
first hearing of the Plovdiv District Court, scheduled for 5 October
1998, was adjourned because Mr D., one of the co-accused, had not
received a copy of the bill of indictment prior to the hearing.
The
hearing listed for 16 November 1998 was adjourned because one of the
co-accused, Mr. G., had fallen ill and three witnesses had not been
duly summoned.
The
hearing scheduled for 11 January 1999 failed to take place
because the applicant's counsel had to attend another court
hearing and the co-accused Mr D. had not retained a lawyer.
The
hearing listed for 25 February 1999 was adjourned because the
co-accused Mr D. had fallen ill.
A
hearing was held on 30 April 1999. The court heard Mr D. and a
witness. The court granted the accused persons' requests for the
collection of evidence.
On
30 June 1999 the court admitted expert evidence and adjourned the
hearing because the one of the co-accused persons, Mr D., had been
admitted to hospital.
On
30 September 1999 the court heard witnesses and admitted expert
evidence. Upon the request of all parties, the prosecutor and the
accused persons, the court ordered a new report on the value of the
stolen objects.
On
15 December 1999 the court, sitting in private, adjourned the hearing
listed for December 1999 because a lay judge had been busy with other
matters and could not attend.
The
hearing listed for 22 March 2000 failed to take place because Mr D.'s
counsel had not been summoned and did not appear. The court also
observed that the expert report had been prepared by two experts
instead of three and ordered the rectification of this deficiency.
The
hearing scheduled for 19 May 2000 was adjourned because of a change
in the composition of the court. Pursuant to Article 257 § 2 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure the examination of the case had to
restart.
The
hearing listed for 14 September 2000 failed to take place because one
of the co-accused, Mr D., did not appear. The court put him on bail
and ordered that he should be brought by force for the next hearing.
Mr
D. did not appear at the hearings of 17 November 2000, 14 February
2001 and 4 May 2001 and they were adjourned. The court sought from
the local police explanation for their failure to secure Mr D.'s
attendance. On 4 May 2001 the court issued an order for Mr D.'s
remand in custody. He was arrested on an unspecified date.
The
applicant's and Mr D.'s counsels were unable to attend the hearing of
4 October 2001 and it was adjourned.
The
hearing scheduled for 21 January 2001 failed to take place because
Mr D. had not been brought from the Plovdiv prison.
On
10 April 2002 the counsels of the accused requested that the case be
remitted to the prosecution authorities for the rectification of
serious procedural deficiencies which had occurred at the pre-trial
stage. The court adjourned the hearing and requested additional
documents from the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office.
On
20 September 2002 the court held a hearing. It found that the rights
of the accused persons had been adversely affected by the fact that
Mr G.'s appeal against the prosecutor's decision of July 1998 partly
terminating the proceedings had not been examined prior to the
indictment. Accordingly, the case was remitted to the Plovdiv
District Prosecutor's Office.
On
7 July 2003 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office prepared a new
bill of indictment and submitted it to the Plovdiv District Court on
8 August 2003.
The
hearings scheduled for 12 March and 27 September 2004 were adjourned
because the victim had not been properly summoned, the applicant's
counsel had withdrawn and an ex officio counsel had to be
appointed by the court, and also because Mr G.'s counsel and a
witness did not appear. The court imposed fines and sought
information and police assistance.
On
1 February 2005 the court held a hearing. It admitted expert evidence
and questioned witnesses and experts. The court furthermore dismissed
the request of Mr G.'s counsel to remit the case to the investigation
stage because of allegedly unclear wording of the bill of indictment.
The
next hearing was scheduled for 9 May 2005. It did not take place
because witnesses failed to appear.
The
hearing listed for 29 September 2005 could not take place as the
applicant had not been duly summoned and did not appear.
On
3 November 2005 the court heard witnesses and experts who had
submitted reports. As some of the witnesses had not appeared and
their testimony was considered of significant importance, the court
adjourned the hearing.
On
21 December 2005 the hearing was adjourned as Mr G. had fallen ill.
As
of 20 March 2006 the case was still pending before the Plovdiv
District Court.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The
Government contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 20 June 1997 and as of
20 March 2006, the date of the latest information received by the
Court, had not yet ended. It has thus lasted on that latter date
eight years and nine months for one level of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that the application/this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above and
Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 59913/00, 2 February
2006).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant further complained of the fact that in Bulgaria there was
no court to which application could be made to complain of the
excessive length of proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the
Convention.
The
Government contested that argument, stating that the applicant had
never declared before the District Court that he wished to have the
case examined speedily.
The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
The
Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement
under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI).
Having
regard to the fact that the Government have not argued that such a
remedy existed in Bulgarian law, the Court considers that in the
present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic law
whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling upholding his
right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth
in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage. He argued, inter alia, that in cases concerning
Bulgaria the Court should take into account the fact that the annual
gross domestic product, the minimum salary and living standards had
increased significantly in recent years.
The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
The
Court awards the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 3,080 in respect of legal fees for
44 hours of legal work on the case before the Court and EUR 55
in respect of postal and overhead expenses (EUR 3,135 in total). He
submitted copies of a legal fees agreement and a time sheet.
The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,200 covering costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 4,000 (four
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damages and EUR 1,200
(one thousand two hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses,
plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
