CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 1 avril 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEBA8B701 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s662A0995 { width:8.93pt; display:inline-block } .s5AA04E69 { width:166.62pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }       FIFTH SECTION             CASE OF RANGELOV AND STEFANOV v. BULGARIA   (Application no. 23240/04)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   1 April 2010   FINAL   01/07/2010   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rangelov and Stefanov v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Renate Jaeger,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Mark Villiger,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 9 March 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 23240/04) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court on 18 June 2004 under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Bulgarian nationals, Mr   Stefan Dimitrov Rangelov and Mr Rangel Vulchev Stefanov, who were born in 1974 and 1972 respectively and live in Plovdiv. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Ms S. Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   S.   Atanasova, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     On 27 May 2008 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29   §   3). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     On 8 and 10 November 1993 three criminal proceedings were opened against unknown perpetrators for three thefts from motor vehicles. 5.     On 10 November 1993 the first applicant, Mr S. Rangelov, was questioned and confessed to having participated in the perpetration of the offences. On the next day, the 11th, the second applicant, Mr R. Stefanov, was also questioned and confessed. Two other individuals were also questioned. 6.     On 15 November 1993 the investigating authorities proposed to transfer the three investigation files to the prosecution authorities as it had been established that the applicants, given their confessions, and their two accomplices had been the perpetrators. 7.     There was no apparent development until 24 April 1996 when the investigating authorities proposed to the prosecution authorities to stay the first criminal proceedings. There was another period of inactivity until 23   April 1999 when the investigating authorities transformed the third criminal proceedings into a police investigation (дознание). 8.     Subsequently between 7 May 2001 and 14 May 2002 the second criminal proceedings were stayed, then resumed and joined to the third criminal proceedings; the first proceedings were also resumed and joined to the third proceedings; and two expert reports were commissioned. 9.     Between 22 October and 12 December 2002 the two applicants and their accomplices were charged with the three thefts. On 13 and 14 March 2003 the charges were amended. 10.     On 10 May 2003 an indictment was filed against the applicants and their co-accused in respect of the three thefts. 11.     At a hearing held on 19 December 2003 the Plovdiv District Court approved a plea bargain agreement and discontinued the proceedings. The applicants were each sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” 13.     The Government did not comment. 14.     The Court finds that the period to be taken into consideration began on 10   November 1993 in respect of the first applicant, Mr S. Rangelov, and on the 11th in respect of the second, Mr R. Stefanov (see Myashev   v.   Bulgaria , no.   43428/02, § 15, 8 January 2009 and Yankov   and   Manchev v.   Bulgaria , nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05, §§ 17-18 and §§ 23-24, 22   October 2009). The period ended on 19   December 2003 in respect of both applicants. It thus lasted a little over ten years for one level of jurisdiction. 15.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 16.     The Court notes that it has frequently found violations of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, most recently, Myashev , §§ 14-18 and Yankov   and   Manchev , §§   17-26, both cited above). 17.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In particular, the major source of delay in the present case was the lack of sufficient activity between 1993 and 2001 for which the applicants do not appear to have been responsible and which the Government failed to explain. Thus, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 18.     The applicants further complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect the excessive length of the proceedings against them. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention. 19.     The Government did not comment. 20.     The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. 21.     The Court notes that it has frequently found violations of Article 13 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, with further references, Myashev , § 22 and Yankov and Manchev , §§   32-33, both cited above). It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 22.     There has therefore been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 23.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A.     Damage 24.     The applicants claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the unreasonable length of the proceedings against them. They additionally claimed EUR 10,000 for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the lack of effective remedies against the excessive length of the proceedings. 25.     The Government contested these claims. 26.     The Court considers that the applicants must have suffered certain non ‑ pecuniary damage as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings against them and the lack of effective remedies in this respect. Taking into account the particular circumstances and the awards made in similar cases, and ruling on an equitable basis, as required under Article 41, the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 6,200, plus any tax that may be chargeable. B.     Costs and expenses 27.     The applicants sought the reimbursement of EUR 3,410 incurred in lawyers' fees for the proceedings before the Court, and of EUR 155 for other expenses. They presented a legal-services agreement and a timesheet approved by the applicants and their representatives. The applicants asked that any award under this head be made directly payable to their lawyers, Ms S. Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov. 28.     The Government contested these claims. 29.     According to the Court's case-law, applicants are entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award them EUR 1,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. This sum is to be paid into the bank account of their legal representatives, Ms   S.   Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov. C.     Default interest 30.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1.     Declares the application admissible;   2.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)     to each applicant, EUR 6,200 (six thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage; (ii)     jointly to both applicants, EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the bank account of their legal representatives, Ms S. Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov; (b)     that from the expiry of the above ‑ mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;   5.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President