European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Stanislav Sashev IVANOV v Bulgaria - 27397/05 [2010] ECHR 866 (18 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/866.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 866
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
27397/05
by Stanislav Sashev IVANOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen, President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva, judges,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 July 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 11 January 2010 made with view to resolving the complaint about the length of the proceedings and requesting the Court to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Stanislav Sashev Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Sofia. He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Lashkov, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 December 1996 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant, a bus driver, for careless driving causing death of a pedestrian.
On an unspecified date in 1997 he was charged with the above offence, was put on bail and his case was brought to the Sofia City Court.
By a judgment of 11 October 1999 the Sofia City Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment suspended for a period of three years. It further prohibited the applicant from driving for a period of two years and awarded the victim's family compensation. The reasons of the judgment were delivered in March 2000.
On 18 March 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's judgment.
On further appeal, on 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment for procedural breaches and remitted the case for fresh examination.
By a judgment of 1 June 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and increased the amount of the compensation.
On appeal, by a final judgment of 28 February 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the previous court's judgments.
COMPLAINTS
3. The applicant complained that due to the lengthy proceedings the limitation period for insurance claims against the insurance company had expired and as a result, he had to pay the compensation awarded to the victim's family himself.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the proceedings
The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
On 11 January 2010 the Court received a unilateral declaration from the Government made with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of 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 § 1 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the amount of [...] EUR 700 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 § 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 (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
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, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part 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, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.
B. The remainder of the applicant's complaints
The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints as submitted by him. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
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 length of the proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President