CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 21 décembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s136DAA9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7D9000BB { width:17.92pt; display:inline-block } .sE896C043 { width:180.96pt; display:inline-block } .s576DFC5F { width:15.93pt; display:inline-block } .sAA5C5B93 { width:187.63pt; display:inline-block }       FIFTH SECTION             CASE OF ARABADZHIEV AND ALEXIEV v. BULGARIA   (Application no. 20484/05)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   21 December 2010     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Arabadzhiev and Alexiev v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Rait Maruste, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 November 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 20484/05) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Bulgarian nationals, Mr Ivan Delev Arabadzhiev and Mr Grigor Dimitrov Alexiev (“the applicants”), on 10 Mai 2005. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mrs S. Stefanova and Mr   A.   Atanasov, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     On 11 March 2009 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol   no. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants were born in 1963 and 1964 respectively and live in Plovdiv. 5.     On 3 October 1994 a conflict arose between the applicants and other individuals, on the one hand, and four policemen, on the other hand, while the latter were trying to arrest a wanted person. The first applicant was arrested. On the next day he was charged with hooliganism and obstruction of public authorities and was released on bail. On 10 October 1994 the second applicant was questioned and the same charges were brought against him. The case remained dormant until 2002. 6.     In July and August 2002 several witnesses were questioned. In September and November 2002 and in February and March 2003 the investigator reformulated the charges against the applicants and questioned them. On 14 June 2003 the public prosecutor filed an indictment against them. 7.     The Plovdiv District Court conducted two hearings and on 18   November 2004 approved a plea bargain agreement between the applicants and the public prosecutor and discontinued the proceedings. The applicants were punished by three months’ imprisonment. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 8.     The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings against them 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 ...” 9.     The Government did not comment. A.     Admissibility 10.     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. B.     Merits 11.     The Court finds that the period to be taken into consideration began on 3 October 1994 in respect of the first applicant and on 10 October 2004 in respect of the second applicant (see paragraph 5 above, also Malechkov v.   Bulgaria , no. 57830/00, § 95, 28 June 2007; and Filipov v. Bulgaria , no.   40495/04, § 34, 10 June 2010). The period ended on 18 November 2004 in respect of both applicants (see paragraph 7 above). It thus lasted more than ten years and one month for a preliminary investigation and one level of jurisdiction. 12.     The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). 13.     The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, among many others, Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria , nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05, §§ 17-26, 22 October 2009; and Stefanov and Yurukov v.   Bulgaria , no. 25382/04, § 17, 1 April 2010). The instant case was not complex and there appear to be no significant delays attributable to the applicants. The main reason why the charges against them were not determined for such a long time was the fact that between October 1994 and July 2002 the case remained dormant (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above). The Government have not provided any explanation for this gap. 14.     Having regard to the above considerations and its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings against the applicants was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 15.     There has therefore been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     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, which reads as follows: “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.” 17.     The Government did not comment. 18.     The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. 19.     The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI). Referring to its reasoning in other cases against Bulgaria where it found that at the material time and in similar circumstances Bulgarian law did not provide for an effective remedy (see, for example, Sidjimov v. Bulgaria , no. 55057/00, § 40-43, 27 January 2005; and Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria , cited above, §§ 32-34), the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 20.     Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 21.     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 22.     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 further claimed EUR 6,000 for the non ‑ pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the lack of effective remedies against the excessive length of the proceedings. 23.     The Government contested these claims. 24.     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 2,500, plus any tax that may be chargeable. B.     Costs and expenses 25.     The applicants also claimed EUR 3,150 in lawyer’s fees for the proceedings before the Court and EUR 155 for other costs, among which translation of the observations, postage and office materials. In support of this claim the applicants presented an agreement with their lawyers and a time-sheet for forty five hours at a rate of EUR 70 per hour. The applicants requested that the amount awarded for costs and expenses under this head be paid directly to their lawyers, Ms S. Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov. 26.   The Government contested these claims as excessive. 27.     According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is 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 were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500, covering costs and expenses under all heads. This sum is to be paid into the bank account of the applicants’ legal representatives, Ms   S.   Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov. C.     Default interest 28.     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 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicants;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, on account of the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length of the proceedings;   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 Mr Arabadzhiev, EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage; (ii)     to Mr Alexiev, EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage; (iii)     jointly to both applicants, EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, 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’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 December 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Stephen Phillips   Rait Maruste   Deputy Registrar   President