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 >> Alexandar Georgiev KIRYAKOV v Bulgaria - 36504/05 [2010] ECHR 787 (4 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/787.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 787 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
36504/05
by Alexandar Georgiev KIRYAKOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen, President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva, judges,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 October 2005,
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, Mr Alexandar Georgiev Kiryakov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Markovo. He was represented before the Court by Mrs S. Stefanova and Mr S. Arnaudov, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 February 1998 the applicant was arrested for theft of food products. At the police station on the same day he admitted to the offence.
On 23 March 1998 criminal proceedings were opened against him in that connection.
On 8 June 1999 a witness was examined.
Apparently, thereafter the case remained dormant.
On 19 February 2002 the applicant was charged with theft.
In October 2004 his case was brought to the Plovdiv District Court.
On 5 April 2005 the District Court approved a plea bargain agreement, sentencing the applicant to four months' imprisonment and discontinued the proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the alleged excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
On 11 January 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 the amount of [...] EUR 2,000 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 applicants. 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 the Government's unilateral 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.”
The Court also recalls that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
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 criminal proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 23 September 2004, Balabanov v. Bulgaria, no. 70843/01, 3 July 2008 and Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria, nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05, 22 October 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.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President