CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 juin 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s27CBFBAB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:12pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2A429DC4 { width:201.96pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 56686/00 by SOFIA INS. AD against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 March 2000, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having regard to the fact that no observations were submitted by the applicant company, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, “Sofia Ins. AD”, is a joint stock company incorporated in 1992 with a seat in Sofia. Mrs I. Alexandrova and Mr   I.   Staikov, liquidators, acted on behalf of the company. It was represented before the Court by Mr   I. Todorov, Ms M. Kalaidjieva and Mr D. Danailov, lawyers practising in Sofia. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   M.   Kotzeva, 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. The applicant company’s scope of business activities was product insurance and re-insurance. It had offered such products since its incorporation in 1992. On 1 January 1997 the Insurance Act (the “Act”) entered into force, which introduced a licensing regime for offering insurance and re-insurance products. On an unspecified date the applicant company filed the necessary documents for obtaining such a licence. On 14 September 1998 the National Insurance Council (the “Council”) refused to issue a licence to the applicant company, because it found that one of its shareholders was a related party to another entity which had debts towards the State. Accordingly, it considered that the requirement for proving the origin of the applicant company’s share capital had not been met. The applicant company’s subsequent appeals were to no avail as the decisions of the Council for refusing to grant a licence were final and not subject to appeal. Consequently, the applicant company ceased offering insurance and re ‑ insurance products and on an unspecified date the Council filed a request with the Sofia City Court to initiate liquidation proceedings against the applicant company. On 5 November 1999 the Sofia City Court granted the request of the Council. The subsequent development of the liquidation proceedings is unclear. It is unknown whether and when the said proceedings were completed and whether the applicant company continues to exist as a legal entity. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant company complained under Article 6 of the Convention that it was denied access to a court because domestic legislation barred the right of appeal against decisions of the National Insurance Council for refusing to issue a licence to existing insurers. The applicant company argued that this denied it the opportunity to challenge the grounds for the decision of 14 September 1999 of the National Insurance Council, which in turn led to it ceasing its business operations and, subsequently, to its liquidation. 2.     The applicant company also complained in substance under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the decision of 14 September 1999 of the National Insurance Council to refuse to issue a licence on the grounds that one of the applicant company’s shareholders had failed to prove the origin of its share capital contribution and that the same shareholder had debts towards the State, which allegedly constituted an interference with its right to continue its business and manage its property, was not made in accordance with law as it was not supported by any relevant facts. 3.     The applicant company also relied on Article 13 of the Convention in respect of its complaints. THE LAW On 3 December 2004 notice of the application was given to the respondent Government under Rule 54 §   2 (b) of the Rules of Court and they were invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. On 8 March 2005 the Government requested an extension of the time for submission of their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The President of the Chamber granted their request of which the parties were informed by letters of 10 March 2005. On 8 April 2005 the Government requested a further extension of the time for submission of their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The President of the Chamber granted their request of which the parties were informed by letters of 11 April 2005. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 18 April 2005 in Bulgarian. They were forwarded to the applicant company’s representatives on 11 May 2005 who were invited to present their client’s observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction. No observations or claims for just satisfaction were submitted on behalf of the applicant company within the prescribed deadline of 22 June 2005 and neither was the Court asked for any extension of time. In a letter of 13 July 2005 the applicant company’s representatives were informed of the above fact and of the terms of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. They were warned that failure to reply might lead the Court to conclude that the applicant company no longer intended to pursue its application. On 12 August 2005 the aforementioned letter was resent, by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, to another address of the applicant company’s representatives mentioned in the case file. It is unclear on which day the letter was received because the return receipt was not returned to the Court. On 24 August 2005 the Government submitted the English translation of their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. It was forwarded on 15   September 2005, by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, to the two addresses of the applicant company’s representatives. The letters were received on 21 September and 4   October 2005. No reply or any further correspondence has been received by the Court on behalf of the applicant company. Moreover, no communication has been received from the applicant company or its representatives since 2003 and neither have they informed the Court if they have in fact changed addresses, as required under Rule   47 § 6 of the Rules of Court. Having regard to the above, the Court finds that the applicant company does not intend to pursue its application within the meaning of Article 37 of the Convention, which, so far as material, provides as follows: “1.     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 the conclusion that (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ... ... 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.” Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require the continued examination of the application (see, mutatis mutandis , Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, ECHR 2005 ‑ ...). In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the application should be struck out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. It is appropriate, therefore, to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention in the present case. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President