European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Rumyana Mancheva SHIDEROVA and Others v Bulgaria - 17923/03 [2011] ECHR 227 (18 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/227.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 227
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
17923/03
by Rumyana Mancheva SHIDEROVA and Others
against
Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
President,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
Julia
Laffranque,
judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 May 2003,
Having regard to the declaration of the respondent Government made with view to resolving the application,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mrs Rumyana Mancheva Shiderova, Mr Dian Nikolaev Shiderov and Ms Petya Nikolaeva Shiderova, Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1963, 1986 and 1988 respectively and live in Kazanlak. They were represented before the Court by Mr L.Varnev, a lawyer practising in Varna. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents Mrs N. Nikolova, Mrs S. Atanasova and Mr V. Obretenov of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 October 1995 the first applicant’s husband, and father of the second and third applicants, was killed in a traffic accident. A preliminary investigation was opened on the same day against the person allegedly responsible for the accident and he was eventually charged with the death of the applicants’ relative. On an unspecified date thereafter one more person was charged in that connection.
On an unspecified date the applicants joined the criminal proceedings as civil claimants and, as such, were invited to and participated in investigatory procedures on 28 March 1997 and 18 August 1998.
In August 1998 the case was brought before the Shumen Regional Court.
On 13 October 1998 the court proceedings were terminated and the case was remitted back to the prosecution authorities because of procedural breaches and for further investigative actions.
On an unspecified date in 2008 the case was again brought before the Shumen Regional Court.
In a judgment of 29 December 2008 the Regional Court found the two perpetrators guilty of a traffic offence which had resulted in the death of the applicants’ relative, imposed fines on them and awarded damages to the applicants.
On appeal, in a final judgment of 12 March 2009 the Varna Court of Appeal partly quashed the previous court’s judgment, upholding the criminal part of the judgment but dismissing the applicants’ civil claim as time-barred.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings in which they took part as civil claimants and the lack of effective remedies in that respect.
THE LAW
The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings in which they took part as civil claimants had been excessive and that they had not had at their disposal an effective remedy in that respect. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.
On 12 November 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 applicants were involved in the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - and its acknowledgment of the lack of effective remedies in that respect as required by and Article 13 of the Convention.
The Government of Bulgaria offer to pay jointly to the applicants Mrs Rumyana Mancheva Shiderova, Mr Dian Nikolaev Shiderov and Ms Petya Nikolaeva Shiderova the amount of 6,400 euros which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law, to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 600 euros to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants [...]”
The applicants 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.
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, Ilievi v. Bulgaria, no. 7254/02, 28 May 2009 and Demirevi v. Bulgaria, no. 27918/02, 28 May 2009).
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 Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska
Deputy
Registrar President