European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Lenko Veselinov YORDANOV v Bulgaria - 1143/03 [2010] ECHR 1217 (6 July 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1217.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1217
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
1143/03
by Lenko Veselinov YORDANOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 July 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Rait
Maruste,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Ganna
Yudkivska,
judges,
Pavlina
Panova, ad
hoc judge,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 December 2002,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Lenko Veselinov Yordanov, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Gabrovo. He was represented before the Court by Ms Z. Stefanova and Ms S. Razboinikova, lawyers practising in Sofia. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms S. Atanasova, of the Ministry of Justice.
Judge Kalaydjieva, the judge elected in respect of Bulgaria, withdrew from sitting in the case. On 5 February 2010 the Government appointed in her stead Mrs Pavlina Panova as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 of the Rules of Court as in force at the time).
On 7 October 2008 the Court partly communicated the application in respect of the complaints concerning the length of the criminal proceedings, the lack of effective remedies and the resulting protracted interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and declared the remainder inadmissible.
On 28 November 2008 the applicant accepted the terms of the friendly settlement declaration proposed by the Registry. The Government also responded positively in a fax of 10 February 2009 but failed to complete the domestic formalities for approval of the settlement of the case within the extended deadline. Accordingly, on 18 September 2009 the Registry discontinued the friendly settlement procedure and resumed the normal processing of the case. However, on 2 December 2009 the Council of Ministers of the respondent Government approved the terms of the friendly settlement declaration proposed by the Registry and on the 4th the Court received a signed copy thereof. Considering this development, on 13 January 2010 the applicant noted that he had accepted the terms of the friendly settlement declaration proposed by the Registry more than a year earlier and that he had incurred additional costs and expenses in the meantime which would not be compensated. In conclusion, he left the matter on how to proceed to the Court's discretion.
On the basis of the aforesaid friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties 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 him 4,000 euros. This sum, which would cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant. It 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 LAW
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement which it considers to have been 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.
Stephen Phillips Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President