CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 juin 2010

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s867F9C1B { width:175.28pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 31695/05 by Svetlozar Petkov DOYCHINSKI against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 June 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 6 August 2005, Having regard to the Government's request to strike the case out of the list of cases and the text of their unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the application, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Svetlozar Petkov Doychinski, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Plovdiv. He was represented before the Court by Ms E. Nedeva, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   M.   Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice. On 12 March 1998 the applicant lodged an action for damages within the framework of the criminal proceedings against a third party. After a preliminary investigation, the case was examined by two levels of court. The courts' final judgment, which also concerned the applicant's claim for damages, was given on 12 July 2006. COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case had been excessively lengthy, and under Article   13 that he did not have effective remedies in respect of the length of the proceedings. 2.     Furthermore, he complained that the proceedings had not been fair because he had not been able to participate effectively in them at the stage of preliminary investigation. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies thereto, under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 13 reads: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” On 11 March 2009 the President of the Fifth Section communicated those complaints to the Government. On 18 March 2010 the Court received a unilateral declaration from the Government made with a view to resolving the application. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration, in particular, read: “[...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] its acknowledgment of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the lack at his disposal of an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 2,300 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]. [...]” By letter dated 23 March 2010 the applicant stated that he did not wish to comment on the Government's declaration. The Court recalls that Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention enables it to strike a case 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”. Having regard to the acknowledgements contained in the Government's declaration, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present complaints, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(c). In view of its extensive and clear case law on length of civil proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Rachevi v.   Bulgaria , no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Vatevi v. Bulgaria , no.   55956/00, 28 September 2006; Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria , no.   20568/02, 2 July 2009), the Court is 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, the application, in so far as it concerns the complaints about the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that respect, should be struck out of the list.   2.     The applicant complained further that the proceedings had been unfair. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court has examined this complaint. However, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaints about the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that regard; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President