European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Prikyan and Angelova v Bulgaria - 44624/98 [2011] ECHR 585 (10 March 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/585.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 585

---

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

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)4¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Prikyan and Angelova against Bulgaria

(Application No. 44624/98, judgment of 16 February 2006, final on 16 May 2006)

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 lack of adversarial proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation (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 satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

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 measures taken by the respondent state (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)4

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

Prikyan and Angelova against Bulgaria

Introductory case summary

The case relates to the lack of adversarial proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation concerning an action brought by the applicants in 1994 to recover possession of a flat (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicants were deprived of an opportunity to submit their arguments on a matter that was decisive for the outcome of the proceedings as the Supreme Court of Cassation, sitting as final instance, determined that the period for adverse possession had lapsed in favour of the applicants’ opponents, without submitting this issue for discussion.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	3 000 EUR	-	3 000 EUR
Paid on 11/08/2006

b) Individual measures

The applicants had the possibility to ask for the consequences of the violation to be erased through the reopening of the proceedings on the basis of Article 231§1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The relevant procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 were modified in 1998, subsequent to the facts in this case. In 2007, a new Code of Civil Procedure entered into force. At present, in cassation proceedings only grounds for cassation raised by the parties are examined (Article 290§2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2007).

Moreover, the European Court noted that at the material time the rules of procedure already authorised the Supreme Court of Cassation to reopen proceedings, to enable parties to submit and discuss observations raised ex officio (§§26 and 51).

Finally, it should be noted that Bulgarian case-law is constantly evolving so as to take better account of the Convention and the case-law of the European Court.

The judgment of the European Court has been translated into Bulgarian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bghttp://www.justice.government.bg/new/Default.aspx and on other websites. It has been sent to the relevant domestic courts.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and the possibility to request reopening the judicial proceedings, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Bulgaria has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.