European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ventsislav Valchev VALCHEV v Bulgaria - 27238/04 [2010] ECHR 1034 (8 June 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1034.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1034
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
27238/04
by Ventsislav Valchev VALCHEV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and Claudia
Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 July 2004,
Having regard to the partial decision of 3 February 2009,
Having regard to the Government's request to strike the case out of the list of cases and the text of their unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the application,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ventsislav Valchev Valchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Haskovo. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Darakev, a lawyer practising in Sofia.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 16 October 1993 the customs authorities seized the applicant's car on suspicion that he had committed a customs and a criminal violation by forging the car's registration documents.
On 7 September 1994 the car was destroyed due to a fire in the garage of the customs office.
On an unspecified date in the beginning of 1996 the applicant initiated an action for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act.
The case was examined seven times by three levels of court, whereby on three occasions the higher instance courts remitted it for fresh examination due to procedural breaches. In a final judgment of 11 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation granted part of the applicant's claim, awarding him the price of the car, plus interest.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the alleged excessive length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13 provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
On 11 January 2010 the Court received a unilateral declaration from the Government made with a view to resolving the application. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration, in particular, read:
“[...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] its acknowledgment of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved. At the same time, the Government admit that in the particular circumstances of the case the complaint about the length of the proceedings has not been redressed at the domestic level as required by Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the amount of [...] EUR 2,300 which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court's case law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian [levs] at the exchange rate applicable at the time of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicants. It will 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]. [...]
The Government, therefore, request that this application be struck out of the Court's list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention. [...]”
The applicant did not comment on the Government's unilateral declaration.
The Court recalls that Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention enables it to strike a case out of its list where:
“[...] for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court also recalls that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
Having regard to the acknowledgements contained in the Government's declaration, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(c).
In view of its extensive and clear case law on length of civil proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006; Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, the application should be struck 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
Registrar President