BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Velislava Ivanova SEMERDZHIEVA v Bulgaria - 34852/05 [2010] ECHR 871 (18 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/871.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 871 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
34852/05
by Velislava Ivanova SEMERDZHIEVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle Berro Lefèvre,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 September 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant's reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Ms Velislava Ivanova Semerdzhieva, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Sofia. The applicant was not legally represented. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms M. Dimova, Ms S. Atanasova and Ms R. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1992 the applicant requested the restitution of a plot of 1,715 square metres expropriated during the communist regime. On 8 March 1993 the mayor of Sofia decided to strike the plot out of the register of State and municipal properties. However, on 31 July 1997 he varied his decision and struck out of the register a plot of only 400 square metres. The applicant unsuccessfully sought judicial review of that decision.
On 30 December 1997 the applicant brought a civil action against the Municipality of Sofia and the Ministry of Regional Development and Territorial Arrangement. The Sofia District Court dismissed the claim in a judgment of 21 July 1998. The applicant appealed. On 2 February 2001 the Sofia City Court quashed the lower court's judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
On 28 February 2003 the Sofia District Court again found against the applicant. Its judgment was upheld by the Sofia City Court on 18 July 2005.
The applicant appealed on points of law. On 22 May 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Sofia City Court's judgment and remitted the case to it for re examination. At the time of the latest information from the applicant (23 April 2010), the case was still pending before the Sofia City Court, the latest hearing having taken place on 8 March 2010.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive duration of the proceedings against the Municipality and the Ministry.
THE LAW
In respect of her complaint about the length of the proceedings the applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
On 25 August 2009 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. On 16 February 2010 it received from the Government a declaration whose text, in so far as relevant, reads:
“... 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 [of the Convention].
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to [the applicant] the amount of 4,400 [euros] 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 of 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]. 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 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. ...”
On 29 April 2010 the applicant, who had been invited to comment on the declaration, asked the Court to continue examining the case. She considered that the sum offered by the Government could not adequately compensate her for the pecuniary and non pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings, and for the costs and expenses incurred in pursuing her application with the Court.
Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention allows the Court to strike an application out of its list where:
“... 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 following proviso:
“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.”
In certain circumstances the Court may strike out an application under those provisions on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 77, ECHR 2003 VI). In the present case, having regard to the Government's admission in relation to the alleged violation, and to the amount of compensation that they propose – which is comparable to the sums awarded in similar cases –, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. In view of its extensive case law concerning the length of civil proceedings, including in cases against Bulgaria (see, among many others, Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, 8 July 2004; Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 47829/99, § 82, 23 September 2004; Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008; and Pavlova v. Bulgaria, no. 39855/03, 14 January 2010), the Court is further 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, it should be struck 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