by Pavleta Georgieva TANOVA
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 August 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Ms Pavleta Georgieva Tanova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Sofia. She was represented before the Court by Mr Y. Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained of the length of criminal proceedings, in which she had acted as a civil claimant and which had continued from 2001 to 2007 (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention), and of the lack of any effective remedies in that respect (Article 13).
On 11 March 2009 the Court communicated the application to the Government.
On 23 April and 2 September 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Bulgaria in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay her 2,700 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 parties agreed that the payment would constitute the final resolution of the case.
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).
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 Peer Lorenzen