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!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF BRATOVANOV v. BULGARIA
(Application
no. 28583/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23
April 2009
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Bratovanov v. Bulgaria,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and
Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 31 March 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 28583/03) 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 a Bulgarian national, Mr Biser
Ivanov Bratovanov (“the applicant”), on 12 August 2003.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr E. Chervenobrejki, a lawyer
practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of
the Ministry of Justice.
- On
2 October 2007 the
Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to
the Government. It also decided to rule on the admissibility and
merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kovachevets.
- In
1995 the applicant entered into contracts under which he undertook to
export wheat to foreign companies. On 11 August 1995 the Council of
Ministers of Bulgaria adopted Regulation No. 160/1995 whereby the
export tax for wheat was increased from 35 United States dollars
(USD) to USD 55. The new rate became effective on 25 August
1995.
- On
24 August 1995 the applicant had already loaded 6,333 metric tons of
wheat on to a cargo ship. At 11.30 p.m. on the same day he submitted
to the customs authorities in the port of
Varna West the necessary customs documents. However, the applicant
was not granted authorisation to export the shipment. Thereafter, he
continued loading the ship and later paid the export tax at the
newly-introduced higher rate, whereupon export authorisation was
granted.
- On 8 October 1996 the applicant brought an action for
damages against the Central Customs Office (Главно
управление
„Митници”)
and the State Fund “Agriculture”
(Държавен
фонд „Земеделие”)
under sections 45 and 55 of the Contracts and Obligations Act of
1951.
- In
a judgment of 10 July 1998 the Sofia City Court dismissed the claim.
The court found that the customs officers had not acted unlawfully
and that in any event the applicant had not sustained any damage.
- The
applicant appealed.
- In
a judgment of 25 June 1999 the Sofia Appeal Court quashed the Sofia
City Court’s judgment and referred the case for a fresh
examination, indicating that the applicable law was the State
Responsibility for Damage Act.
- The
Central Customs Office appealed against the Sofia Appeal Court’s
judgment. By decision of 19 April 2000, the Supreme Court of
Cassation terminated the proceedings as the lower court’s
decision to refer the case back to the court of first instance was
not amenable to cassation appeal.
- In
a judgment of 23 December 2003 the Sofia City Court
established that the applicant had sustained damage and granted his
claim.
- The
proceedings continued on appeal before the Sofia Appeal Court and the
Supreme Court of Cassation at least until 19 April 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings 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 his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government did not make any observations.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 8 October 1996 and on
19 April 2007 had not yet ended. It had already lasted on that date
ten years and six months at three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- 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 the proceedings instigated by the applicant fall clearly
within the scope of tort law. Therefore, the tax-related background
of the dispute cannot prevent the right to compensation claimed by
the applicant from being considered a “civil right” for
the purpose of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Finally, the Court considers that this complaint it is not
inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
- 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- 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 Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the remainder of the application
admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 April 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Rait Maruste
Registrar President
