British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
ANGELOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA - 43586/04 [2010] ECHR 1734 (4 November 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1734.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1734
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF ANGELOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
(Application
no. 43586/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 November
2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Angelov and Others v. Bulgaria,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Mark
Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
and
Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 October 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 43586/04) against the
Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by four Bulgarian nationals, Mr Atanas Kolev Angelov, Mr Mitko Tomov
Mitev, Mr Hristo Yankov Yankov and Mr Rangel Yankov Yankov (“the
applicants”), on 26 November 2004.
The
applicants were represented by Ms S. Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov,
lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms S.
Atanasova, of the Ministry of Justice.
On
2 October 2008 the
President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 3 of the Convention).
On 11 February 2010 the Government submitted a
unilateral declaration and invited the Court to strike the
application out of its list of cases, in accordance with Article 37
of the Convention.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicants were born in 1971, 1962, 1966 and 1965 respectively. The
second applicant is currently detained in Plovdiv Prison. The third
applicant lives in Nicosia, Cyprus. The remaining applicants live in
the village of Stryama in Bulgaria.
On
6 and 12 May 1992 the police in Rakovski opened two investigations
into several thefts of sheep and goats. Between 13 and 19 May
1992 the applicants submitted written explanations admitting to
having committed the thefts.
The
proceedings remained dormant until January 2002 when a police
investigator questioned several witnesses and commissioned two expert
reports concerning the value of the stolen animals. Between 21 and
24 January 2002 the investigator brought charges against the
four applicants.
On
15 March 2002 the first and third applicants were questioned before a
judge.
In
November 2003 the investigation was concluded and on 8 December
2003 the applicants were indicted for theft. On 1 June 2004 they
entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution, accepting short
suspended sentences. At a hearing held on the same day the Plovdiv
District Court affirmed the agreement and discontinued the
proceedings. Its decision was final.
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR THE APPLICATION TO
BE STRUCK OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
On
11 February 2010 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration,
acknowledging that the domestic proceedings had lasted an
unreasonably long period of time, in violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention, and offering to pay each of the applicants EUR 500
in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs
and expenses. The Government invited the Court to strike out the
application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the
Convention.
In
their written reply dated 23 March 2010 the applicants argued that
the amount proposed did not constitute sufficient just satisfaction
for the damage they had suffered and requested the Court to continue
the examination of the application.
The Court notes that, under certain circumstances, it
may be appropriate to strike out an application under Article 37 §
1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by
the respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the
examination of the case to be continued. It will, however, depend on
the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration
offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights
as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue
its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey
(preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75,
ECHR 2003 VI, and Krawczak v. Poland (no.
2), no. 40387/06, § 18, 8 April 2008).
Turning
to the case at hand, the Court observes that although the Government
acknowledged in their unilateral declaration that the domestic
proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy, they did not offer the
applicants adequate redress. The Court considers that the sum
proposed in the declaration in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage and costs and expenses, namely, EUR 500 per applicant, does
not bear a reasonable relationship to the amounts awarded by the
Court for non-pecuniary damage in similar cases (see, most recently,
Kostov and Yankov v. Bulgaria,
no. 1509/05, § 31, 22 April 2010, and Stefanov
and Yurukov v. Bulgaria, no. 25382/04, §
26, 1 April 2010).
For
these reasons the Court finds that the Government have failed to
establish a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human
rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not
require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by
contrast, Jeleva and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no.
274/04, 1 December 2009).
That
being so, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike
the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the
Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the
admissibility and merits of the case.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The
Government did not comment.
The
Court notes that in May 1992, within the
framework of a police investigation, the applicants submitted written
explanations, admitting to having committed the thefts (see paragraph
6 above). It considers that asking for these explanations represented
a sufficient notification on the part of the authorities of an
allegation that the applicants had committed an offence (see Stefanov
and Yurukov, cited above, § 15). Thus,
the applicants must be considered to have been “charged”
within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. However, the period
to be taken into consideration began only on 7 September 1992,
when the Convention entered into force in respect of Bulgaria. The
period in question ended on 1 June 2004 when the Plovdiv District
Court affirmed a plea agreement between the applicants and the
prosecution (see paragraph 9 above). It thus lasted about eleven
years and nine months for one level of jurisdiction.
The
Court considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, or
inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities (see,
among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see, for example, Stefanov and Yurukov, cited above).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court sees no reason
to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It notes, in
particular, that the authorities remained completely inactive for a
period of almost ten years (from 1992 to January 2002, see paragraphs
6-7 above) and that there appear to have been no delays attributable
to the applicants. Furthermore, the case appears to be relatively
simple. Thus, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court
considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was
excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicants further complained under Article 13 of the Convention of
the lack of any effective remedy in respect the excessive length of
the proceedings against them.
Article
13 reads:
“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.”
The
Government did not comment.
The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
In
view of its finding above (see paragraph 23) that the length of the
proceedings was excessive, the Court considers that the applicants
had an “arguable claim” under Article 13.
The
Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement
under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI).
The
Court is not aware of the existence at the relevant time of any
remedy under Bulgarian law, capable of preventing the alleged
violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress (see
Gerdzhikov v. Bulgaria, no.
41008/04, § 31, 4 February 2010, and Stefanov and
Yurukov, cited above, § 21).
Accordingly,
it finds that in the present case there has been a violation of
Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of any effective
remedy under domestic law in respect of the length of the criminal
proceedings.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicants claimed 13,000 euros (EUR) for each of them in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government considered that the finding of a violation in the case
would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
The
Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards to each of them EUR
3,500 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants also claimed EUR 3,305 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. They requested that any amount awarded under this
head be transferred directly into the bank account of their legal
representatives, Ms Stefanova and Mr Atanasov.
The
Government considered this claim to be excessive.
According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the circumstances of the case and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 600 covering costs
under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicants. That sum is to be transferred directly into the bank
account of the applicants’ legal representatives.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Rejects
the Government’s request to strike the application out of the
list;
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be
converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement:
(i) to
each applicant, EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros), plus
any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) jointly
to the four applicants, EUR 600 (six hundred euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and
expenses, to be paid into the bank account of their legal
representatives, Ms Stefanova and Mr Atanasov;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 November 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
