European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Anton Stoyanov DIMITROV v Bulgaria - 31952/05 [2010] ECHR 1956 (2 November 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1956.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1956
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
31952/05
by Anton Stoyanov DIMITROV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait
Maruste,
President,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 August 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 21 April 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anton Stoyanov Dimitrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Sofia. 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.
In 1991 and 1992 the applicant requested restitution from the local land commission of several plots of land in different localities, among which a plot of 7.32 hectares (“ha”) located in the village of Voynikovo, Tervel Municipality. With a decision of 1992 the land commission refused to restore the total of 49.2 ha, including the 7.32 ha. Following an appeal, on 3 June 1999 the Dobrich Regional Court remitted the case to the land commission and ordered it to issue separate decisions for each claimed plot.
The land commission issued in 1999 and 2000 six separate refusals which did not concern the plot of 7.32 ha. The applicant appealed against them, which led to six sets of proceedings. The length of the restitution proceedings from 1992 until 5 September 2003, which included the period when the proceedings for the seven plots were joined until 1999 and the subsequent six sets of proceedings, was the subject of the applicant’s previous application before this Court which resulted in a judgment awarding him compensation on account of the excessive length (Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 47829/99, 23 September 2004).
In 2003 the applicant brought separate proceedings under section 11 (2) of the Agricultural Land Act claiming restitution of the entire plot of land of 62.9 ha of which he was allegedly entitled to restitution. In a final judgment of 8 April 2004 the Regional Court found against the applicant, holding that he failed to prove that his ancestor had held title to the land.
In the meantime, on 11 March 1998 the local land commission refused to restore the plot of 7.32 ha. The refusal was however served on the applicant in November 2004. It is unclear whether he had requested information on the development on his request during that period. He appealed against that refusal and the domestic court admitted the appeal as lodged within the time limit.
In a final judgment of 29 November 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the land commission’s refusal of 11 March 1998, holding that the issue about the plot of 7.32 ha had already been decided in the final judgment of 8 April 2004 in the proceedings concerning the entire land of 62.9 ha. These proceedings were not examined within the context of the applicant’s first application before the Court (no. 47829/99).
Following new decisions of the land commission in 2004 refusing restitution of the same six plots of land that were subject to the terminated proceedings discussed in application no. 47829/99, the applicant appealed against these refusals. In final judgments of 28 April and 9 May 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the appeals.
In 2005 the applicant brought separate restitution proceedings concerning a plot of 11.4 ha. In a final decision of 23 September 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the claim.
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court notes that in the applicant’s first application Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 47829/99, 23 September 2004) it already found a violation of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 in connection with the proceedings concerning the said plot for the period from 7 September 1992 to 3 June 1999. Thus, the period to be examined in this case is from 3 June 1999 to 29 November 2005, or six years, five months and twenty seven days for one level of jurisdiction.
In a letter dated 21 April 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application 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...
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the amount of 650 EUR 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 the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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 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, 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, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
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, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning the plot of 7.32 ha and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases, in so far as it relates to the above complaint, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
