by Vasilka Stoilova MARINA
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 February 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The case originated in an application lodged with the Court on 27 March 2002 by Ms Vasilka Stoilova Marina, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Plovdiv. She was represented before the Court by Ms S. Stefanova and Mr M. Ekimdjiev, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents, Ms M. Dimova and Ms S. Atanasova, of the Ministry of Justice.
On 12 February 2008 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of a set of civil proceedings for damages which she had initiated and which had lasted from 29 March 1999 to 9 November 2005.
On 26 February and 12 December 2008 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 European Convention on Human Rights. 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 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).
As to an expressed preference by the applicant concerning the repartition of the amount to be paid by the Government between her and her legal representatives, the Court considers this to be an internal matter between them.
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