BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Dimitar Iliev GERDJIKOV v Bulgaria - 41008/04 [2009] ECHR 216 (6 January 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/216.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 216 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
41008/04
by Dimitar Iliev GERDJIKOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait
Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia
Westerdiek, Section
Reistrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 November 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dimitar Iliev Gerdjikov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1957 and lives in the village of Rosen. He is represented before the Court by Ms P. Gosteva, a lawyer practising in Pazardzhik.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1992 the applicant was acting as a liquidator of an agricultural co operative in the village of Rosen.
In 1993 a preliminary inquiry for mismanagement committed between April and December 1992 was opened against him by the police in Pazardzhik. He was questioned on at least one occasion. On 2 February 1993 the police confiscated his passport.
On 29 June 1994 the Pazardzhik regional public prosecutor's office instituted formal criminal proceedings against the applicant for mismanaging the assets of the co-operative thus causing it substantial pecuniary damage.
No further investigative steps were taken after the opening of the criminal proceedings and the applicant was never formally charged or indicted.
On an unspecified date in 1994 the investigator to whom the case had been assigned imposed a prohibition for the applicant to leave the country. The prohibition was registered with the passport issuing department of the Pazardzhik police on 12 October 1994. The applicant submits that he made several requests to the investigation officer for the acceleration of the proceedings.
On 2 July 2004 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated by the Pazardzhik regional public prosecutor's office, which found that the five-year limitation period for prosecution of the respective offence had already expired.
Towards the end of 2004 or at the beginning of 2005 the police lifted the travel ban imposed on the applicant.
On 1 June 2005 the applicant requested the Pazardzhik regional public prosecutor's office to provide him with a copy of the case file in relation to the present application. In a letter of the same day the applicant was informed that he had to show what complaints he had raised and what documents he needed in order to support them.
The present application form is supported by documents concerning the main developments in the proceedings against the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
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.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning the length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in that regard;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President