European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 17608/02
by Ilcho Zoev HRISTOV
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 18 April 2002,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ilcho Zoev Hristov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Sofia. He was represented before the Court by Ms D. Mihaylova, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Kotzeva, of the Ministry of Justice.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In October 1999 the applicant was charged with petty theft.

On an unspecified date the case was submitted for trial. The Sofia District Court listed a hearing for 4 September 2001. The summons for the hearing was served on another person who apparently failed to inform the applicant and he did not appear in the courtroom.

On 4 September 2001 the District Court adjourned the hearing and ordered the applicant's remand in custody. This order was enforced on 10 October 2001.

On 23 October 2001 the applicant and the prosecution authorities reached a plea bargain agreement which was approved immediately by the Sofia District Court. The applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, suspended.

The District Court revoked the applicant's remand in custody in view of the fact that the proceedings had come to an end. It did not, however, order explicitly the applicant's release and after the hearing he was brought back to the Sofia Central Prison.

On 25 October 2001 the Sofia District Court sent a letter to the Sofia Central Prison ordering the applicant's immediate release, unless he was detained on other grounds. The applicant was released on 30 October 2001.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention between 23 and 30 October 2001 had been unlawful and arbitrary.

THE LAW

In October 2006 the Registry sent to the applicant a letter informing him that the application had been communicated to the respondent Government for observations. A similar letter was also sent to the European Roma Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation based in Budapest, since in January 2006 they had written to the Registry stating that they worked on the case together with the applicant's lawyer and wished to be informed of relevant developments.

On 2 July 2007 the Registry sent to the applicant a letter informing him that no observations had been received from the Government within the relevant time-limit. The applicant was invited to submit his observations and claims for just satisfaction before 7 September 2007. A similar letter was sent on 2 July 2007 to the European Roma Rights Centre.

As no reply was received, by letter dated 6 May 2008 sent by registered post, the applicant was invited to state whether he intended to pursue the application. The applicant's representative's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.

The letter of 6 May 2008 was returned with the mention that it had not been reclaimed.

All correspondence to the applicant was sent at the address of his legal representative.

The Court has not received any correspondence from the applicant since the introduction of the application in 2002.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Claudia Westerdiek Rait Maruste
Registrar President