European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Kalkanov v Bulgaria - 19612/02 [2011] ECHR 2134 (2 December 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2134.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2134

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)192¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Kalkanov against Bulgaria

(Application No. 19612/02, judgment of 9 October 2008, final on 9 January 2009)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the unfairness of certain civil proceedings due to the refusal by the Supreme Court of Cassation to examine a decisive argument raised by the applicant (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having noted that in the judgment the Court did not make any award for just satisfaction;

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the relevant circumstances (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)192

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Kalkanov against Bulgaria

Introductory case summary

The case concerns civil proceedings brought in 1999 by the applicant in order to have his dismissal revoked. Deciding on the applicant’s appeal on points of law, the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to examine a decisive argument he raised, finding that he was barred from doing so as the argument in question was new and required new evidence to be gathered, which was not possible at this stage of the proceedings.

The European Court noted that this conclusion of the Supreme Court of Cassation was clearly erroneous as it was disproved by the facts of the case. The applicant had raised the argument as early as in his initial statement of claim and the argument had in effect been examined by the lower courts (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

Following the judgment of the European Court, the applicant did not apply for re-opening of the domestic proceedings criticised by the judgment although he had the possibility to do so, in accordance with Article 303, §1, subparagraph 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In these circumstances, no further individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The government considered that the violation found in this case constituted an isolated incident and was not due to defects in the legislation or the judicial practice. Therefore, the government considered that no specific general measure was required for the execution of this judgment.

III. Conclusion of the respondent state

The government considers in the light of the above that no further action is required pursuant to the present judgment in the light of Bulgaria’s obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the judgment.