European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Petar Georgiev KRIVENCHEV v Bulgaria - 1113/04 [2008] ECHR 327 (18 March 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/327.html
Cite as: [2008] ECHR 327
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
1113/04
by Petar Georgiev KRIVENCHEV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Snejana
Botoucharova,
Volodymyr
Butkevych,
Rait
Maruste,
Renate
Jaeger,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
judges
and Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 December 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Petar Georgiev Krivenchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Plovdiv.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The traffic accident and proceedings to recover damages resulting therefrom
On 10 February 1996 the applicant was run over by a car. He was taken to hospital where he spent seventeen days. It was discovered that he had a head injury accompanied by a temporary hearing impairment and concussion. He recovered fully within 40 days.
On 10 October 1996 the applicant brought a claim for damages for bodily injury against the driver of the car before the Plovdiv Regional Court. The motorist was the vice-president of one of the biggest trade unions in Bulgaria.
In February 1998 a medical expert report was prepared and presented in court. The same month the court ordered that a technical expert report be prepared. The technical report was prepared in March 1998.
In a judgment of 18 January 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court granted the claim.
The defendant appealed. In a judgment of 17 July 2001 the Plovdiv Appellate Court affirmed.
The defendant submitted a cassation appeal. In a judgment of 21 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s judgment.
2. Enforcement proceedings against the tortfeasor
On 9 March 2004 the applicant obtained a writ of execution in respect of the compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the traffic accident. On 7 April 2004 he filed a request for attachment of the judgment debtor’s salary.
On 8 April 2004 the enforcement judge ordered that a summons advising the judgment debtor to pay voluntarily be dispatched. On an unknown date the summons returned with the note that the addressee did not live at the address indicated. The enforcement judge therefore sent another summons with invitation for voluntary compliance with the judgment to the debtor’s employer. On 7 June 2004 the summons was duly delivered to a clerk at the debtor’s employer.
On 16 August 2004 the applicant again requested that the enforcement judge attach the debtor’s salary.
It appears that the enforcement judge ordered that a writ to attach be dispatched to the debtor’s employer. However, it appears that the writ was either not sent or it was not duly delivered as no acknowledgment of receipt was received. On an unknown date the enforcement judge sent a reminder to the debtor’s employer indicating that the debtor’s salary had been attached, apparently believing that a writ of attachment had been sent.
On 10 November 2004 the applicant challenged the tacit refusal of the enforcement judge to attach the debtor’s salary. In a judgment of 14 April 2005 the Sofia City Court established that the enforcement judge had failed to take the necessary steps to collect the debt. The court reasoned, inter alia, that the enforcement judge, had she performed her duties diligently, would have verified whether an acknowledgement of receipt of the writ of attachment had been duly returned. The court set aside the tacit refusal and ordered the enforcement judge to take steps to collect the debt. It appears that the enforcement judge failed to carry out the order of the court.
On 21 October 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the enforcement judge requesting that the latter took steps to collect the debt. On 28 October 2005 the debtor paid, apparently of his own accord, the sum of BGN 300. Part of the sum covered court fees and part was paid to the applicant. On 27 January and 15 February 2006 the applicant made fresh complaints and again requested that the enforcement judge uses her power to collect the debt.
On 9 August 2006 the judgment debtor paid the sum of BGN 1,042. Part of that sum covered the debtor’s obligations to the State and part was paid to the applicant.
On 27 October 2006 the applicant received the remainder of the sum due.
It appears that at all times while the enforcement proceedings have been pending the debtor was employed as a vice-president of a trade union.
3. Other relevant facts
On 15 October 2004 the applicant filed a complaint against the judgment debtor with the prosecution authorities. He claimed that the debtor was criminally liable under Article 293a of the Criminal Code according to which wilful non-compliance with a judgment ordering payment of a sum of money to a judgment creditor constituted a criminal offence.
On 11 January 2007 a prosecutor from the Plovdiv Prosecution Office terminated the proceedings.
B. Relevant domestic law
Under Article 323 of the Code of Civil Procedure the enforcement judge opens enforcement proceedings on the basis of a writ of execution and a request for enforcement by the creditor. The creditor must specify the method of collecting the judgment debt. Article 341 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the enforcement method can be attachment of wages. Under Article 332 and 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure either of the parties to the enforcement proceedings can complain before the local regional court about wrongful acts or omissions of the enforcement judge.
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
In the light of all the material in its possession, and insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the above complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
It follows that the complaints must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of the civil proceedings and the difficulties he encountered in enforcing the final judgment;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President