European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Tanko Zaprianov TODOROV v Bulgaria - 38454/04 [2011] ECHR 352 (31 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/352.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 352

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

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 38454/04
by Tanko Zaprianov TODOROV
against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,
Mark Villiger,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 October 2004,

Having regard to the partial decision of 2 December 2008,

Having regard to the Government’s request to strike the case out of the list of cases and the text of their unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the application,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The application was lodged by Mr Tanko Zaprianov Todorov, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1976 and is at present serving a sentence in Plovdiv Prison. He was represented before the Court by Ms E. Nedeva, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms S. Atanasova, from the Ministry of Justice.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 11 December 1997 the applicant was arrested and on the next day he was charged with murder. On 14 October 1999 he was indicted.

On 3 December 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court acquitted the applicant. However, its reasoning was only made available in 2004.

The prosecution filed an appeal against the acquittal. In a judgment of 20 September 2004 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal reversed, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment. However, that judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 13 May 2005.

After a fresh examination of the case, on 1 December 2005 the Plovdiv Regional Court convicted the applicant for murder and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment. On 16 October 2006 and 30 May 2007 that judgment was upheld respectively by the Plovdiv Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had lasted unreasonably long and under Article 13 that he had no effective remedies in that regard.

Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, reads:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 13 reads:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

On 11 January 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 the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration, in particular, read:

“... The Government hereby wish to express ... [their] 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 and Article 13 of the Convention.

Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 1,600 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 any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant. 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 declaration.

Article 37 of the Convention provides that the Court 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. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court 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”.

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.”

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 the present application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(c).

In view of its extensive and clear case-law on length of proceedings (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006 V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, 8 April 2004; Kolev v. Bulgaria, no. 50326/99, 28 April 2005; and Gerdzhikov v. Bulgaria, no. 41008/04, 4 February 2010), 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, the application should be struck out of the list.

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