[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Veneta Niagolova LAZAROVA v Bulgaria - 63813/00 [2008] ECHR 820 (1 July 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/820.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 820

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

FIFTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

Application no. 63813/00
by Veneta Niagolova LAZAROVA
against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 2000,

Having regard to the partial decision of 6 November 2007,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Veneta Niagolova Lazarova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Plovdiv. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Neikov, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms S. Atanasova of the Ministry of Justice.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 17 December 1992 the former owners of a real estate, which the applicant had bought from the municipality, brought proceedings against her before the Plovdiv District Court under section 7 of the Restitution Law.

The proceedings were eventually terminated with a judgment, in the plaintiff’s favour, rendered by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 3 April 2000.

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

On 29 April 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“The Government of Bulgaria offer to pay 1,800 euros to Mrs Veneta Niagolova Lazarova with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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 European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The Court also received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Veneta Niagolova Lazarova note that the Government of Bulgaria are prepared to pay me the sum of 1,800 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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 European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Bulgaria in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President