CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 17146/21 Stanimir Stefanov PETROV against Bulgaria lodged on 16 March 2021 communicated on 16 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the compliance with the principle of ne bis in idem . On 10 July 2013, а traffic police officer at the Harmanli Police Station imposed on the applicant a fine amounting to 100 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent of 51 euros (EUR) for breaching Article 23(1) of the Road Traffic Act, namely, for causing a road accident on 2 July 2013 by not observing a safe distance with the vehicle in front of him. Subsequently, on 13   December 2016, the Haskovo Regional Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant under Article 343(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, namely, of causing a person’s death as a result of the same road accident. During the examination of the criminal case on the merits, the applicant requested the courts to terminate the criminal proceedings because he had already been imposed a fine for causing the road accident. In a final decision of 29 June 2017, the Plovdiv Appellate Court rejected his request, considering that the two sets of proceedings did not concern the same offence and that the first set of proceedings did not amount to criminal prosecution. In a judgment of 27 February 2018, the Haskovo Regional Court found the applicant guilty of negligently causing a person’s death by hitting the latter’s vehicle from behind, sentenced him to probation and imposed a temporary driving ban. That judgment was upheld by the Plovdiv Appellate Court, and subsequently by the Supreme Court of Cassation in a final judgment of 16   September 2020. Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 and on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was prosecuted and convicted twice for the same offence and that he had no effective remedy in that respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the criteria determined in the Court’s case-law (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June 1976, § 82, Series A no. 22), did the proceedings initiated against the applicant under the Road Traffic Act concern a “criminal charge” within the meaning of the Convention?   2.     Did the proceedings initiated against the applicant under the Road Traffic Act and the Criminal Code concern the “same offence” (see Sergey Zolotukhin v.   Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 82, ECHR 2009)?   3.     Was the applicant tried and punished twice for the same offence in the territory of the respondent State in breach of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, an effective domestic remedy through which he could have raised his complaint concerning a breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention?