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]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF PAVLOV v. BULGARIA
(Application
no. 3662/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March 2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pavlov v. Bulgaria,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä,
President,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 February 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 3662/06) 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 Rayko Metodiev Pavlov (“the applicant”),
on 5 January 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr K.D. Kirev, a lawyer practising in
Kardzhali. The Bulgarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Nikolova,
of the Ministry of Justice.
- On
24 November 2010 the
application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kardzhali.
- On
17 September 1999 the applicant, who worked as a foreman in a mine,
was dismissed for a violation of the discipline. On 27 September 1999
he brought proceedings against his employer, claiming that his
dismissal was unlawful and seeking reinstatement to work and
compensation.
- The
hearing on 1 December 1999 of the Kardzhali District Court was
postponed for gathering of evidence. On 1 March and 26 April 2000 the
court instructed the applicant to correct certain flaws in his
statement of claim. From 7 June to 5 July 2000 it conducted three
other hearings and on the latter date postponed the hearing to 20
September 2000 for questioning of witnesses. The applicant made a
complaint about delays. On 13 July 2000 the Kardzhali Regional Court
established that the District Court had postponed the hearing of the
case on a number of occasions for gathering of evidence. It noted
that the District Court could have been more diligent in conducting
the case in view of the nature of the claim. For example, it could
have imposed fines on the parties for not submitting their requests
in due course. It instructed the District Court to conduct the next
hearing within one month as from the date on which the case file
would be returned to it.
- In
compliance with the instructions, the District Court rescheduled the
next hearing for 2 August 2000. On 7 August 2000 it held the last
hearing and dismissed the claim. It held that the applicant had
breached his duties as a foreman because during the night shift on 27
August 1999 he had exempted one of his subordinates from work without
reporting his absence. The applicant appealed.
- The
Regional Court held two hearings and on 1 February 2001 quashed the
judgment of 7 August 2000 and granted the applicant’s claim. It
held that the procedural requirements for requesting explanations
from the applicant had not been met by his employer. The latter
appealed.
- On
18 March 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation conducted a hearing. In
a judgment of 15 April 2002 it quashed the judgment of 1 February
2001. It held that the applicant’s employer had met the
procedural requirements for taking explanations from the applicant.
- On
17 May 2002 the Regional Court held a hearing. The applicant
requested the assignment of an expert report. The hearings on 21 June
and 13 September 2002 were postponed because the appointed experts
had failed to submit their reports. Between 25 October and 6 December
2002 it conducted three other hearings and on 3 February 2003
dismissed the claim. It held that the applicant had exempted a worker
from the night shift without reporting his absence, and thus had
breached his duties of a foreman and had abused the confidence of his
employer. The applicant appealed.
- The
Supreme Court of Cassation conducted a hearing on 2 June 2005 and in
a final judgment of 19 September 2005 upheld the judgment of
3 February 2003. It fully endorsed the findings of the Regional
Court.
- On
two occasions in 2000 and 2002 the applicant complained to the
president of the Kardzhali Regional Court and the Ministry of Justice
that the examination of his case was delayed. In letters of 23 March
2000 and 20 November 2002 the president of the Regional Court
informed the applicant that he had not established any unreasonable
delays in the proceedings.
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 argued that the length of the proceedings had not been
unreasonable in view of the fact that the case had been examined
twice by the Supreme Court of Cassation. They further maintained that
the applicant had been responsible for some of the delays because of
the flaws in his statement of claim. They also stated that the
applicant’s complaint about delays had been examined by the
higher court.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 27 September 1999 and
ended on 19 September 2005. The proceedings thus lasted six years
less eight days for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further
notes that 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). Special diligence is necessary in employment
disputes (Georgi Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no.
22381/05, § 18, 27 May 2010).
- 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 Kotseva-Dencheva v. Bulgaria, no. 12499/05, §
22-23, 10 June 2010, and Georgi Georgiev, cited above, §
19-20).
- 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. In
particular, the case does not seem to have been complex as it
concerned only one incident: the non-appearance of a worker during
the night shift and the applicant’s conduct as a foreman (see
paragraphs 7 and 10 above). In respect of the conduct of the
authorities, it should be noted that the case was examined twice by
the Supreme Court of Cassation, which caused an overall delay of more
than three and a half years, and that one of these reviews resulted
in the remittal of the case to the Regional Court (see paragraphs
9 and 11 above). There is no indication that the applicant
contributed to any significant delays in the proceedings, save the
flaws of his statement of claim, which caused a three-month delay
(see paragraph 6 above). Therefore, having regard to its case-law on
the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the overall
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. OTHER COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
that the domestic courts had not been impartial and had dismissed his
action.
- The
Court notes that the applicant failed to adduce any arguments in
support of these complaints. It follows that they must be
rejected as unsubstantiated, and therefore manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the
Convention.
III. 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed, without elaborating further, 5,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 9,000 in non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims as unsubstantiated and excessive.
- The
Court notes that the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage is
unsubstantiated, and therefore rejects it. On the other hand, it
considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage
in connection with the violation of the Convention found in his case.
Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 800 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim for costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should
be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank,
to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,
EUR 800 (eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,
in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Bulgarian
levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2012, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Päivi
Hirvelä
Deputy Registrar President
