European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Maria Velichkova YORDANOVA and Others v Bulgaria - 8919/05 [2010] ECHR 1353 (31 August 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1353.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1353
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
8919/05
by Maria Velichkova YORDANOVA and Others
against
Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 August 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 22 February 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 18 March 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants' reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are the Bulgarian nationals Ms Maria Velichkova Yordanova, Ms Magda Velichkova Yordanova, and Ms Anka Marieva Petrova, born in 1980, 1979 and 1976, respectively. They live in Plovdiv and are represented before the Court by Mrs S. Stefanova and Mr. A. Atanasov, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms R. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 June 1997 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of pick pocketing. On 30 June 1997 criminal proceedings were opened against them. Apparently, between July 1997 and May 2001 the case remained dormant. On an unspecified date in August 2001 an indictment was filed against them with the Plovdiv District Court. On 20 October 2004 the District Court convicted the first two applicants of pick-pocketing and acquitted the third applicant. The judgment became final in respect of the third applicant. Following an appeal, in a judgment of 24 January 2005 the Plovdiv Regional Court terminated the proceedings against the first two applicants as time-barred. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against them was unreasonable and that they did not have an effective remedy in this respect.
THE LAW
The applicants complained about the length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect.
The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, 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 18 March 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 applicants were involved within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicants Ms. Maria Velichkova Yordanova, Ms. Magda Velichkova Yordanova and Ms. Anka Marieva Petrova the amount of 3,500 EUR or 1,167 euro[s] to each of the applicants 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 [...] . 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]. [...]”
In a letter of 13 April 2010 the applicants requested the Court to continue examining the case.
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 acknowledgement 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 criminal proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 23 September 2004, Balabanov v. Bulgaria, no. 70843/01, 3 July 2008 and Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria, nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05, 22 October 2009), 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