FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24435/05
by Totka Simeonova TRIFONOVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
	Rait Maruste, President,
	Karel Jungwiert,
	Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 June 2005,
Having regard to the partial decision of 7 July 2009,
Having regard to the Government’s request to strike the case out of the list of cases and the text of their unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the application,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Totka Simeonova Trifonova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Plovdiv. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1988 the applicant’s uncle bought from the Plovdiv municipality a plot of land with a two-storey house which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by communist regime in Bulgaria after 1947. In 1991 he conveyed the property to the applicant. Following the adoption of restitution legislation in Bulgaria in the beginning of the 1990s, the former owners of the property brought an action seeking to have the applicant’s uncle’s title declared null and void and their own title restored. In 1998 these claims were allowed by the courts.
On 18 August 1997 the property’s former owners brought a rei vindicatio action against the applicant, seeking her eviction. On 16 March 1999 the proceedings were stayed to await the outcome of another case. After the other proceedings ended, on 26 January 2005 the rei vindicatio proceedings were resumed. On 6 November 2006 the Plovdiv District Court allowed the plaintiffs’ action and ordered the applicant to vacate the property. The applicant filed an appeal. As of November 2008 the proceedings were still pending before the Plovdiv Regional Court and the Court has not been informed of their course after that.
On an unspecified date in 1998 the applicant filed an action against the Plovdiv municipality and the Ministry of Finance seeking to recover the price her uncle had paid for the plot and the house in 1988. The claim was examined by three levels of court and allowed partially in a final judgment of 13 December 2005.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and that she did not have effective remedies in that respect.
THE LAW
The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies thereto, under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.
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.”
On 7 July 2009 the Court communicated those complaints to the Government and declared the remainder of the initial complaints inadmissible.
On 18 March 2010 the Court received a unilateral declaration from the Government made with a view to resolving the application. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration, in particular, read:
“[...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] its acknowledgment of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved. At the same time the Government admit that in the particular circumstances of the case the complaint about the length of the proceedings has not been redressed at the domestic level as required by Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the [...] applicant Totka Simeonova Trifonova the amount of EUR 3,700 which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian [levs] at the exchange rate applicable at the time of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the [Convention]. [...]
The Government, therefore, request that this application be struck out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention. [...]”
The applicant did not comment on that declaration.
The Court recalls that Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention enables it to strike a case out of its list where:
“[...] for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
Having regard to the acknowledgements contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(c).
In view of its extensive and clear case law on length of civil proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004, Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006, and Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria, no. 20568/02, 2 July 2009), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Stephen Phillips	Rait Maruste
	Deputy Registrar	President