CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 décembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sDD1A0F0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sB49F962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s35E51398 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-size:12pt } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE34A12C3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7F391FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s1C5EB874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s4CBECF56 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7D25ADE3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.4pt; font-size:12pt } .sB3D11547 { width:35.4pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s749CDD5C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-size:12pt } .s69DB9EB2 { font-family:'Times New Roman' } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6E2F59E3 { margin-left:47.67pt; padding-left:24.33pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFE27D578 { margin-left:51pt; padding-left:21pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s94EFA0D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s77692902 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt; font-size:12pt } .s30F7AACB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s60F188FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt; font-size:12pt } .s48982D0D { width:20.85pt; display:inline-block } .s59262D35 { width:13.84pt; display:inline-block } .s30211FAB { width:70pt; display:inline-block } .sD8E8E2A1 { width:27.52pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)223 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings in 84 cases against Bulgaria (see Appendix III)   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2010, at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the Convention”),   Having regard to the number of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) finding Bulgaria in violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 13 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of judicial proceedings and the absence of an effective remedy in this regard (see Appendix III to this resolution);   Recalling that excessive delays in the administration of justice constitute a serious danger, in particular to respect for the rule of law and access to justice;   Recalling also its Recommendation Rec(2010)3 to member states on the need to improve the effectiveness of domestic remedies for excessive length of proceedings, and emphasising the importance of this question where judgments reveal structural problems likely to give rise to a large number of further similar violations of the Convention;   Having examined the information supplied by the Bulgarian authorities concerning the measures taken or envisaged in response to those judgments (see Appendix I), including the statistical data on the length of judicial procedures (see Appendix II);   Assessment of the Committee of Ministers   I. Individual measures   Having noted the individual measures taken by the authorities to provide the applicants redress for the violations found ( restitutio in integrum ), in particular the acceleration, as far as possible, of proceedings which were still pending after the findings of violations by the Court;   Noting however with concern that the domestic proceedings in seven cases are still pending before the domestic courts and that the authorities have been unable to provide information about two other cases (see Appendix I);   CALLED UPON the Bulgarian authorities to provide for acceleration as much as possible of the proceedings pending in these cases, in order to bring them to an end as soon as possible, and to inform it of the progress of proceedings in the two afore-mentioned cases;   II. General measures   1)      Measures aimed at reducing the length of judicial proceedings   Noting the numerous violations found by the Court on account of the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings in Bulgaria, revealing certain structural problems in the administration of justice at the time of the relevant facts;   Welcoming the numerous legislative reforms adopted by the authorities in order to remedy these structural problems and in particular the adoption of the new codes of criminal and civil procedure (see Appendix I);   Welcoming likewise the other measures taken by the authorities to increase the efficiency of the judicial system, and in particular the establishment of assessment and monitoring mechanisms, including the collection and analysis of statistical data;   Noting that the 2009 statistics show a reduction in the backlog in the Bulgarian courts as a whole, and an increase in the number of cases dealt with in the space of 3 months (see Appendix II);   Noting however that, according to the statistics, the backlog in the district courts located in regional centres has increased slightly by reason of the substantial rise in the number of cases registered, and that those courts were responsible for examining half the cases pending in the country in 2009 (see Appendix II);   Noting also that the legislative reforms introduced between 2006 and 2010 have not yet produced their full impact on the length of proceedings and that a longer period of time is needed before the effectiveness of all the measures taken can be fully and completely assessed;   ENCOURAGED the Bulgarian authorities to pursue their efforts in following up the reforms introduced, in order to consolidate their positive effects, in particular as regards the situation in the district courts located in regional centres;   CALLED ON the authorities to continue to monitor the effects of these reforms as it proceeds, with a view to adopting, if appropriate, any further measure necessary to ensure its effectiveness, and to keep the Committee informed of the developments in this regard;   2)      Measures relating to the effectiveness of remedies   Recalling that the Court has found numerous violations of the right to an effective remedy in contesting the excessive length of proceedings in Bulgaria, revealing certain structural problems in this field;   Recalling its Recommendation Rec(2010)3 encouraging states to introduce remedies making it possible both to expedite proceedings and to grant compensation to interested parties for damage suffered;   Noting with interest that Articles 255-57 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide that, if a court does not take a procedural step in due time, the parties may at any time apply to the superior court for a time-limit to be set for the taking of the procedural step in question, thus affording a remedy designed to speed up the civil proceedings (see Appendix I);   Noting also that there exist in criminal law certain forms of non-pecuniary redress, such as the possibility of reducing the sanction, where there is a finding of excessive length of proceedings;   Noting however that at the present time no domestic remedy is available for expediting excessively lengthy criminal proceedings or obtaining pecuniary compensation if appropriate (see Appendix I);   Welcoming in this context the reform undertaken by the authorities aimed at introducing into Bulgarian law a compensatory remedy where excessive length of judicial proceedings is alleged (see Appendix I);     INVITED the Bulgarian authorities to complete as soon as possible the reform undertaken in order to introduce a remedy whereby compensation may be granted for prejudice caused by excessive length of judicial proceedings, and to keep the Committee informed of its progress and of any other measure that may be envisaged in this field;   Having regard to the foregoing, the Committee of Ministers     DECIDED to resume its examination of progress made at the latest: -           by the end of 2011, with regard to the question of effective remedy; -           by mid-2012, with regard to the question of the excessive length of judicial proceedings.     Appendix I to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)223   Information supplied by the Bulgarian government on the measures taken by the Bulgarian authorities     Individual measures   The proceedings which were still pending before the domestic courts at the time when the Court gave its judgments have been terminated in most of the cases. At the present time, the proceedings have not yet been terminated in the Belchev, Hamanov, Nedyalkov, Valkov, Kamburov, Kavalovi and Merdzhanov cases. Information is still awaited also on the state of progress in the proceedings in the Kolev and Sidjimov cases.     General measures   1) Measures aimed at reducing the length of proceedings   - Legislative measures   In 2007 a new Code of Civil Procedure (“CCvP”) was adopted. The adoption of that code, which came into force on 1 March 2008, forms part of the overall reform of the civil justice system in Bulgaria designed in particular to speed up judicial proceedings. The new code seeks inter alia to concentrate decisions relating to the judicial investigation in the proceedings at first instance and to limit appeal and cassation proceedings.   The most important provisions of the new CCvP provide for: - the express obligation on civil courts to examine cases within a reasonable time (Article 13); - the “concentration principle” whereby evidence is brought together in the first instance proceedings; according to this principle, the parties may submit evidence or ask for evidence to be taken no later than the first hearing (Articles 127, 133, 143 and 146); after the first hearing, the parties may only request the taking of evidence which could not be adduced earlier; by way of comparison, the 1952 code allowed evidence to be submitted throughout the judicial investigation, including elements which could have been submitted earlier, subject to payment of procedural costs; - the change of second instance from a “second first instance” to an appeal instance, examining only the points raised in the appeal (Article 269), at which the parties may no longer submit evidence and arguments which they could have raised in the court of first instance ( Article 266); - limitation of the grounds for lodging an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court; henceforth, there are only three categories of judgments handed down by the second-instance courts which can be subject to appeal in cassation (those which are at variance with the case-law of the Supreme Court of Cassation, those relating to a question on which courts deciding on the merits have handed down contradictory judgments, and those relating to a question considered important for the development of law or for the precise application of the law); under the previous cassation system, the Supreme Court of Cassation was competent to judge the lawfulness and validity of the great majority of judicial decisions taken at second instance; - simplification of summons arrangements, with the possibility of serving a summons by delivering it to the letter-box of the person concerned or affixing it to his/her front door.   The authorities consider that a longer period of time will be needed for the real impact of the new CCvP on length of proceedings to be assessed.   A new Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”), adopted in 2005, came into force on 29 April 2006. Like the new CCvP, it aims in particular to speed up criminal proceedings. For example, it prescribes short time-limits for the examination of a case and for postponement of its examination (Articles 252, 271 and 345) and the more widespread use of simplified procedures (Articles 356-361, 362-367 and 370-374). According to the 2009 report of the president of the Supreme Court of Cassation on the work of the courts, the simplified judicial procedures most often used in 2009 in the field of criminal justice related to summary judicial investigation and plea bargaining between the accused and the prosecution (an agreement enabling the prosecution to be terminated provided the court approves).   The other important provisions of the CCrP provide for: -           the obligation on the courts and bodies responsible for the preliminary investigation to examine criminal cases within a reasonable time; in addition, cases in which the accused is held in detention must be given priority over other cases by the courts examining and judging them (Article 22); -           time-limits for termination of the preliminary investigation and prohibition on the use in court of any evidence obtained outside the time-limit (Article 234); -           the introduction of summary judicial investigation in courts of first instance; this procedure makes it possible for the accused to obtain a reduction of sentence if he admits the offence and relinquishes the production of evidence, provided he is assisted by counsel (where necessary appointed by the court); -           broader applicability of the simplified procedure whereby the accused may be absolved of his criminal responsibility and an administrative penalty imposed instead.   Furthermore, the 2005 CCrP was amended in 2010 for the purpose, in particular, of avoiding (a) unjustified referrals at the preliminary investigation stage (Article 249§3) and (b) postponement of the hearing where the representative of the accused fails to appear without good reason (Article 94). In addition, it is to be noted that now the possibility for the prosecution to bring further charges during the judicial investigation has been widened, even if those charges relate to different facts or an offence carrying a more severe penalty (Article 287§1).   Some other changes are aimed at reducing the excessive formalism of criminal procedure in Bulgaria (for example, the abrogation of the requirement that the investigator draws up a formal document setting out his conclusions – Articles 231-235).   - Administrative measures designed to improve the organisation and management of the courts   Among other reforms designed to improve the efficiency of the Bulgarian judicial system, should be mentioned the creation in 2007 of an electronic commercial register managed by an administrative agency (see the commercial register law in force since 1 July 2007). Thus the regional courts which were responsible for registering commercial companies in the past have been absolved of that responsibility.   Furthermore, following the adoption of the new Code of Administrative Procedure in 2006, 28 administrative courts were set up in 2007. These new administrative courts have powers previously exercised by the regional courts. In addition, as an ad hoc measure aimed at lightening the workload of the Supreme Court of Cassation, labour disputes pending before it when the 2007 CCvP came into force have been transferred to the appeal courts.   It should also be pointed out that the judicial authorities now have access to the national database containing the population register, which should overcome certain delays arising from requests for information needed to take judicial proceedings forward.   Finally, Bulgaria has achieved a high level of computerisation designed to assist both judges and other personnel (for further details, see the 2010 report of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice – CEPEJ). Moreover, the courts are continuing their efforts to improve their IT equipment in order to communicate with parties. Those efforts were recently rewarded by the award of the 2010 “Crystal Scales of Justice” prize to the Yambol administrative court for the work it has done to improve users’ understanding of judicial procedure.   - Mechanisms for periodic assessment and monitoring of the work of the courts   Two bodies – the Supreme Judicial Council Inspectorate and the Ministry of Justice Inspectorate – have the main responsibility for monitoring and assessing the work of the courts, prosecution services and investigating magistrates. The Supreme Judicial Council Inspectorate , established in 2007, comprises an inspector-general and ten inspectors elected by Parliament for terms of five and four years respectively (Article 132a of the Constitution). It oversees the administrative organisation of the courts, prosecution services and bodies in charge of preliminary investigations, together with the proper organisation of preliminary investigations and cases pending before prosecutors and courts. In particular, the inspectorate oversees compliance with the time-limits laid down by law for dealing with cases. It carries out its tasks (a) through planned regional inspections and (b) through inspections focussing on particular questions. It may also conduct inspections in response to reported irregularities (Articles 54 and 56 of the law on judicial powers).   Following inspections, it makes recommendations, particularly concerning compliance with the time-limits laid down by law for dealing with cases. Implementation of its recommendations is monitored in the course of follow-up inspections. The inspectorate may also make proposals to courts’ administrative authorities and to the Judicial Service Commission for the imposition of disciplinary penalties on judges, prosecutors and investigating magistrates (see “Disciplinary measures” below). The work of the inspectorate is covered in the progress report of the Supreme Judicial Council.   The Ministry of Justice Inspectorate oversees, among other things, the manner in which case registration and handling are managed, as well as closure of cases within the legal time-limits. This inspectorate organises thematic controls in accordance with a programme approved by the Ministry of Justice. It may make recommendations and supervises their implementation in the course of subsequent inspections.   The Ministry of Justice Inspectorate is also responsible for overseeing application of the new CCvP and CCrP. During inspections already carried out, it has observed some of the causes of procedural delays and made recommendations in this regard.   Furthermore, the presidents of the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court are required to present annual reports on the functioning of trial and appeal courts, in addition to annual reports on their own activities (Articles 114§§1 and 2 and 122§§1 and 2 of the law on judicial powers). Lastly, each year the Supreme Judicial Council centralises and analyses the statistics on the work of all the country’s courts (cf. Appendix II).   - Disciplinary measures   Under the law on judicial powers, systematic failure to comply with the time-limits laid down in procedural laws, and action or inaction such as to delay proceedings in an unjustified manner, are disciplinary offences (Article 307§4). The Judicial Service Commission has the power to impose disciplinary penalties (other than comment and reprimand, which are imposed by the hierarchical superior) on judges, prosecutors and investigating judges. The public bodies responsible for enforcing judicial decisions and the bodies responsible for entries in the land registry may be sanctioned by the Ministry of Justice (Article 311).   The authorities have stated that during the period 2007-2009 the number of disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council rose steadily (13 in 2007, 28 in 2008 and 83 in 2009). By way of example, in 2009 seven judges and one head of administration were sanctioned, mainly for systematic failure to comply with the time-limits laid down by law. Among them, three judges were dismissed and three others had their salaries reduced by 10 to 25% for periods of up to a year.   - Long-term strategies   The Bulgarian authorities have adopted several strategies on judicial reforms. For example, a criminal policy strategy for the period 2010-2014 has been adopted, the principal objective being to further reduce the excessive formalism of criminal procedure. It should be noted that the amendments to the 2010 CCrP were decided on the basis of this strategy (see above).   Further, in 2009 the government adopted a plan to eradicate the causes of violations of the Convention found by the European Court in its judgments concerning Bulgaria. That plan was drawn up by a working party which included representatives of the Ministry of Justice as well as human rights activists. Among the tangible results obtained on the basis of this plan, should be mentioned the working party set up to introduce an application for compensation in cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings (see below). In June 2010 the government adopted the strategy on continued judicial reforms in Bulgaria following its accession to the European Union.     2)   Measures relating to the effectiveness of remedies   - Remedy concerning speeding up of civil proceedings   A remedy allowing to question the length of civil proceedings was introduced into Bulgarian law as long ago as 1999 (Article 217a of the former CCvP). The provisions governing this remedy were maintained to a great extent in the new CCvP of 2007. Articles 255 to 257 thereof stipulate that, if a court fails to take a procedural step in time, the parties may at any time request the superior court to set a deadline for taking the procedural step in question. The request is lodged through the court seised of the case, which must send it to the superior court together with its own opinion. If the court seised of the case takes the requested steps immediately, the request is deemed to be withdrawn unless the party concerned states that it wishes to maintain the request. In cases where the request is transmitted to the superior court, it must be examined within one week by a judge of that court. If he finds that there has been unjustified delay, the superior court sets a deadline by which the procedural step must be taken. The order of the superior court is final.   According to the data supplied by the authorities, the regional courts examined 242 applications for speeding up of civil proceedings in 2007. 110 applications were examined in 2008 and 142 in 2009. Also in 2009, the appeal courts examined 78 applications for the speeding up of proceedings.   The European Court has accepted that the remedy provided for in Article 217a of the former CCvP is effective in principle (see Simizov v. Bulgaria , no. 59523/00, § 56, 18 October 2007, Jeliazkov and others v. Bulgaria, no. 9143/02, § 48, 3 April 2008, and Stefanova v. Bulgaria, no. 58828/00, § 69, 11 January 2007). It has however stated that account must be taken of the circumstances of each case ( Stefanova, cited above, § 69) and of the effect which such application might have on the overall length of the proceedings in question ( Simizov, cited above, §§ 54-56). In several cases the Court has found that the application in question has not or could not have prevented certain delays by reason of their specific causes, such as for example inactivity on the part of the prosecution, inability of the domestic authorities to ensure that one party to the proceedings is properly summonsed, or errors in the application of the law ( Stefanova, cited above, §§ 70 and 71, Mincheva v. Bulgaria no. 21558/03, § 105, 2 September 2010, Maria Ivanova v. Bulgaria no. 10905/04, § 35, 18 March 2010).   Furthermore, the European Court observed that it was unclear whether this remedy was available before the Supreme Court of Cassation, in so far as there was no higher court.   The authorities have indicated that these shortcomings will be taken into account when defining a new application for compensation in cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings (see below).   - Remedy concerning speeding up of criminal proceedings   The provisions of Articles 368 and 369 of the new CCrP, which incorporated Article 239a of the 1974 CCrP, envisaged the possibility for the accused to request referral of his case to the competent court once a period of 1 to 2 years, depending on the gravity of the charges, had elapsed since the start of the preliminary inquiry. The court to which that request was submitted could order the prosecuting authority to complete the preliminary inquiry within a period of two months or else bring the criminal proceedings to an end.   In the Ganchev judgment (no. 57855, §§ 26-34, 12 July 2007), the European Court declared the complaint based on Article 6 § 1 inadmissible for failure to exhaust the domestic remedies, because the applicant had not availed himself of the remedy provided for in Article 239a of the 1974 CCrP. However, it should be noted that in another case examined by the European Court ( Shishkovi v. Bulgaria, no. 17322/04, 25 March 2010), the application of Article 239a of the 1974 CCrP was the cause of the closure of a criminal inquiry into ill-treatment. In that case the European Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.   Articles 368 and 369 were abrogated as from 28 May 2010. The authorities indicated in this connection that the abrogated provisions had mainly served as a reason for terminating the criminal proceedings, without guaranteeing a full inquiry. They consider that new provisions relating to the possibility of imposing disciplinary penalties for systematic failure to comply with time-limits or for unjustified delays could be seen as a guarantee of expeditious criminal proceedings (for more details, see the Government’s reply to one NGO’s observations on this point on the Committee of Ministers website: DH-DD(2010)335 ).   - Compensatory remedy   The European Court has consistently pointed to the absence in Bulgarian law of a remedy enabling compensation to be obtained for excessive length of judicial proceedings (see, for example, the Mincheva v. Bulgaria judgment cited above, § 107).   In this connection the Government has indicated that, in the context of implementing a plan to eradicate the causes of the violations found by the European Court in judgments concerning Bulgaria, it has set up a working party to prepare a bill amending the law on the responsibility of the state and municipalities for prejudice caused to individuals. This bill envisages, in particular, the introduction of an application for compensation in cases of unjustified delay in the proceedings. This working party has drafted a bill providing that the state may be held responsible, in addition to the cases already settled, where unjustified delay in civil, criminal and administrative proceedings are attributable to the judicial authorities.   As regards criminal proceedings, it should also be noted that certain forms of non-pecuniary redress exist in cases of excessive length of proceedings, such as the possibility of reducing the penalties. This form of redress has been recognised by the European Court as an effective remedy in certain circumstances ( Bochev against Bulgaria judgment of 13 November 2008, § 83).         Appendix II to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)223   Statistical data     I. Statistics on length of judicial proceedings before the Bulgarian courts   1) Data for Bulgarian courts as a whole [1]   The general trend which emerges from the data available shows that, despite a resurgence in the number of cases registered, the number of cases terminated for all courts is on the increase (in 2009 it was 4.59% higher than in 2007, and 15.46% higher than in 2008). Similarly, the backlog facing the courts as a whole decreased for the second year running. Thus the decrease in the number of cases pending at the end of 2009 is of 10.26% as compared with 2007 and of 2.35% as compared with 2008.   The number of judges, taking all courts together, was 2,162 in 2009, 1.45% more than in 2007 and 1.74% more than in 2008.   2) Supreme Court of Cassation [2]   - Criminal bench   One consequence of the entry into force of the 2005 CCrP was a fall in the number of cases registered, since judgments delivered on appeal upholding the judgments delivered at first instance are now not subject to review by the Supreme Court of Cassation. Thus, while the criminal bench had examined 3,950 cases at public hearings in 2006, the corresponding figures for 2008 and 2009 were 2,081 and 1,955 cases respectively.   In 2009 the criminal bench registered 131 cases more than in 2008, and its backlog also increased (from 279 cases at the end of 2008 to 383 cases at the end of 2009). However, that increase in the backlog had no major effect on the length of proceedings before the criminal bench. Indeed, in 2009, the proceedings following appeals in cassation and applications for reopening of procedures took between 3 and 4 months, as in 2008.   - Civil bench   Despite an increase in the number of new cases registered in 2009 (2,191 more than in 2008 and 513 more than in 2007), the backlog before the civil bench decreased at the end of the same year (4,706 cases pending at the end of 2009 as compared with 5,361 in 2008 and 8,555 in 2007).   - Commercial bench   The backlog before the commercial bench at the end of 2009 was on the increase (1,385 cases pending at the end of 2009 as compared with 634 at the end of 2008). That increase was the result of the higher number of cases registered (55.46% more than in 2008), notwithstanding the increase in the number of cases terminated in 2009 (21.31% more than in 2008).   3) Supreme Administrative Court [3]   Despite a constant increase in the number of cases terminated by this court between 2007 and 2009 (13,777 cases in 2007, 15,095 cases in 2008 and 16,263 cases in 2009), its backlog slightly increased during that period due to the increase in the number of cases registered (13,659 cases in 2007, 16,402 cases in 2008 and 17,190 in 2009). In 2009, 7% of cases terminated were concluded within one month and 66% within three months, while 27% took over three months.   4) Appeal courts   The backlog in the appeal courts is constantly decreasing. The number of cases pending at the end of 2009 (1,713) decreased by 45.89% as compared with 2007 and by 22.28% as compared with 2008.   5) Military tribunals   The same trend is observed in military tribunals. In 2009, the backlog decreased by 52.07% as compared with 2007 and by 35.20% as compared with 2008.   6) Regional courts and the Sofia City court   The creation in 2007 of 28 administrative courts, as well as an agency responsible for entries in the commercial register, led to a significant decrease in the number of cases registered by regional courts in 2009 (42.73% fewer than in 2007 and 2.64% fewer than in 2008). Cases pending at the end of 2009 numbered 23,392, a figure 31.76% lower than in 2007 and 15.99% lower than in 2008.   7) District courts located in regional centres   The backlog in these courts at the end of 2009 had grown by 1.05% as compared with 2007 and by 7.03% as compared with 2008. This increase is due to the rise in the number of cases they had to deal with in 2009 (23.05% more than in 2007 and 18.29% more than in 2008), and despite a larger number of cases terminated during that year (28.36% more than in 2007 and 20.70% more than in 2008).   In 2009 the district courts located in regional centres registered 285,547 cases; 94,317 cases were registered by the Sofia district court, i.e. 33% of all cases newly registered with the courts in this category. [4]   8) District courts located outside regional centres   The backlog in these courts at the end of 2009 had fallen (by 12.64% as compared with 2007 and by 7.54% as compared with 2008) notwithstanding an increase in the number of cases they had to deal with (11.30% more than in 2007 and 15% more than in 2008).   This trend was due to the increase in the number of cases terminated in 2009 (16.47% more than in 2007 and 19.72% more than in 2008). It is also to be noted that in 2009, 92,541 cases were concluded within three months, a figure 22.88% higher than for 2007 and 25.71% higher than for 2008.   9) Administrative courts   These courts began sitting in 2008. In 2009 they dealt with 45,164 cases, a figure 8.81% higher than in 2008. The number of cases terminated in 2009 was 10.09% higher than in 2008. Despite that increase, the number of cases pending at the end of 2009 was 4.23% higher than for 2008.   II. Statistics for the length of preliminary investigations   In 2009, cases in which the preliminary investigation was under way numbered 213,151, a figure 4% higher than for 2008. Investigations started during 2009 numbered 139,894, 6% more than for 2008. Investigations initiated during the year represented 66% of investigations under way in 2009. The backlog at the start of 2009 consisted of 73,257 cases being investigated. The backlog at the end of 2009 consisted of 52,511 cases being investigated (as against 59,048 in 2007).   As regards cases in which the investigation was suspended, their number fell from 961,713 in January 2007 to 654,334 at the end of 2009. In 98% of these cases, the reason for suspension is the impossibility of identifying the perpetrator of the criminal offence.   Appendix III to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)223   - 47 cases of length of criminal proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy 37104/97   Kitov, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03 35825/97   Al Akidi, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03 rectified on 16/10/03 61662/00   Angelov Vasil, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007 61596/00   Atanasov and Ovcharov, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 17/04/2008 70843/01   Balabanov, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 03/10/2008 39270/98   Belchev, judgment of 08/04/2004, final on 08/07/2004 36552/03   Dimitrov Maxim, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010 50401/99   Dimitrov Vasko Yordanov, judgment of 03/05/2006, final on 03/08/2006 56762/00   Dimov, judgment of 08/03/2007, final on 08/06/2007 68356/01   Doinov, judgment of 27/09/2007, final on 27/12/2007 43231/98   E.M.K., judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005 44062/98   Hamanov, judgment of 08/04/2004, final on 08/07/2004 35436/97   Hristov, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/2003 32461/02   Hristov Ivan, judgment of 20/03/2008, final on 20/06/2008 36244/02   Hristov Stoine No. 2, judgment of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009 67189/01   Ivanov, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007 76942/01   Ivanov Valentin, judgment of 26/03/2009, final on 26/06/2009 49163/99   Kalpachka, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 02/02/2007 65051/01   Karagyozov, judgment of 25/10/2007, final on 25/01/2008 76965/01   Karmo, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008 45964/99   Karov, judgment of 16/11/2006, final on 26/03/2007 50326/99   Kolev, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005 30380/03   Lisev, judgment of 26/02/2009, final on 26/05/2009 71605/01   Mirchev and others, judgment of 27/11/2008, final on 27/02/2009 58775/00   Mladenov, judgment of 12/10/2006, final on 12/01/2007 43428/02   Myashev, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009 38106/02   Nalbantova, judgment of 27/09/2007, final on 27/12/2007 44241/98   Nedyalkov, judgment of 03/11/2005, final on 03/02/2006 40896/98   Nikolova No. 2, judgment of 30/09/2004, final on 30/12/2004 54178/00+   Osmanov and Yuseinov, judgment of 23/09/2004, final on 23/12/2004 50358/99   Pekov, judgment of 30/03/2006, final on 30/06/2006 48137/99   Popov, judgment of 01/12/2005, final on 01/03/2006 14387/03   Rangelov, judgment of 23/04/2009, final on 23/07/2009 56337/00   Rezov, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007 37355/97   S.H.K., judgment of 23/10/03, final on 23/01/04 55057/00   Sidjimov, judgment of 27/01/2005, final on 27/04/2005 58733/00   Sodadjiev, judgment of 05/10/2006, final on 05/01/2007 62594/00   Terziev, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007 38299/05   Todorov Spas, judgment of 05/11/2009, final on 05/02/2010 56308/00   Toshev, judgment of 10/08/2006, final on 10/11/2006 42987/98   Vachev, judgment of 08/07/2004, final on 08/10/2004 72636/01   Valkov, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009 59913/00   Vasilev, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006 61257/00   Vasilev and others, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 08/02/2008 70728/01   Yankov No. 2, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/05/2008 27207/04+   Yankov and Manchev, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010 45563/99   Zhbanov, judgment of 22/07/2004, final on 22/10/2004     - 37 cases of length of civil proceedings and lack of an effective remedy 45950/99   Djangozov, judgment of 08/07/2004, final on 08/10/2004 56793/00   Babichkin, judgment of 10/08/2006, final on 10/11/2006 28583/03   Bratovanov, judgment of 23/04/2009, final on 23/07/2009 27918/02   Demirevi, judgment of 28/05/2009, final on 28/08/2009 47829/99   Dimitrov, judgment of 23/09/2004, final on 23/12/2004 15154/02   Givezov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008, rectified on 30/09/2009 62722/00   Gospodinov, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007 58497/00   Hadjibakalov, judgment of 08/06/2006, final on 08/09/2006 7254/02   Ilievi, judgment of 28/05/2009, final on 28/08/2009 19207/04   Ivanov Petko, judgment of 26/03/2009, final on 26/06/2009 14226/04   Ivanovi, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010 9143/02   Jeliazkov and others, judgment of 03/04/2008, final on 03/07/2008 55350/00   Kambourov, judgment of 14/02/2008, final on 14/05/2008 60939/00   Karcheva and Shtarbova, judgment of 28/09/2006, final on 28/12/2006 74487/01   Kavalovi, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 17/04/2008 44626/98   Kiurkchian, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 24/06/2005 76763/01   Kostova, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007 9161/02   Kouncheva, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 03/10/2008 57641/00   Kovacheva and Hadjiilieva, judgment of 29/03/2007, final on 29/06/2007 29802/02   Krastev, judgment of 24/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008 66535/01   Kroushev, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 03/10/2008 77147/01   Kuiyumdjiyan, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 24/08/2007 20568/02   Marinova and Radeva, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009 50954/99   Maslenkovi, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008 69316/01   Merdzhanov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008 15099/04   Nachev, judgment of 05/11/2009, final on 05/02/2010 72855/01   Parashkevanova, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007 39855/03   Pavlova, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010 47877/99   Rachevi, judgment of 23/09/2004, final on 23/12/2004 7148/04   Ruga, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 06/11/2009 16880/02   Sheremetov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008 59523/00   Simizov, judgment of 18/10/2007, final on 18/01/2008 58828/00   Stefanova, judgment of 11/01/2007, final on 11/04/2007 19256/03   Stefanova Donka, judgment of 01/10/2009, final on 01/01/2010 39832/98   Todorov Nikolai Petkov, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005 2380/03   Tzvyatkov, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010 55956/00   Vatevi, judgment of 28/09/2006, final on 28/12/2006   [1] The data summarised in this part are available on the website of the Supreme Judicial Council, in the section on judicial statistics. [2] Data available on the website of the Supreme Court of Cassation, particularly in its annual report for 2009: http://www.vks.bg/Docs/VKS_Doklad_2009.pdf [3] These data form part of the report of the president of the Supreme Administrative Court for 2009 and are available on that court’s website: http://www.sac.government.bg/home.nsf/vPagesLookup/Доклад%202009-Народно%20събрание~bg?OpenDocument [4] Additional information on the performance of trial and appeal courts is available in the 2009 report of the president of the Supreme Court of Cassation:   http://www.vss.justice.bg/bg/start.htm