European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Totka Gospodinova TODOROVA v Bulgaria - 20806/04 [2010] ECHR 2156 (30 November 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2156.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 2156
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
20806/04
by Totka Gospodinova TODOROVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 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 3 June 2004,
Having regard to the partial decision of 20 January 2009,
Having regard to the declaration of the respondent Government made with view to resolving the application and requesting the Court to strike it out of its list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Ms Totka Gospodinova Todorova, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Stara Zagora. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdjiev, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs S. Atanasova and Mrs M. Kotzeva, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 September 1998 a company brought an action for unjust enrichment against the applicant in her capacity of a sole trader for allegedly using a building belonging to the company without authorisation.
By a judgment of 24 June 1999 the Stara Zagora Regional Court partly granted the action.
Upon appeal by the applicant, by a judgment of 2 December 1999 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted the case to be examined by another panel of the Regional Court.
On 20 March 2000 the applicant brought a counterclaim for the price of the improvements she had made in the property.
By a judgment of 1 December 2000 the Regional Court partly granted the action of the company and fully granted the applicant’s counterclaim.
Upon appeal by the plaintiff, by a judgment of 15 July 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s judgment and once again remitted the case as it found that the Regional Court had delivered a judgment on an action different from that brought before it.
On 11 December 2002 the plaintiff amended its action.
By a judgment of 28 March 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action and the applicant’s counterclaim as unsubstantiated.
By a judgment of 17 May 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s judgment and once again remitted the case as it found that the Regional Court had delivered a judgment on the initial action of the plaintiff and had not examined the amended action.
The applicant appealed. On 21 February 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal and upheld the remittal.
By a judgment of 1 July 2005 the Regional Court partly granted the plaintiff’s action for indemnity and the applicant’s counterclaim.
On 19 July 2005 the applicant appealed against the judgment in so far as it granted the plaintiff’s action. The remainder of the judgment, in so far as it concerned the applicant’s counterclaim, became final.
By a judgment of 9 February 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
Upon further appeal by the applicant, by a final judgment of 14 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts’ judgments and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The proceedings concerned sums amounting to approximately 17,000 euros.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings were not conducted within a reasonable time and that she lacked effective domestic remedies in that respect.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that respect. She relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.
On 4 August 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 § 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 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It 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.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI), WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007 and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Bulgaria, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004, Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006 and Kabakchievi v. Bulgaria, no. 8812/07, 6 May 2010).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
