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 PARASHKEVANOVA v. BULGARIA
(Application
no. 72855/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3
May 2007
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 Parashkevanova v. Bulgaria,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M.
Tsatsa Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr M. Villiger,
judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 April 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 72855/01) 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 Ms Galina Nikolaeva Parashkevanova, a Bulgarian national who was
born in 1953 and lives in Sofia (“the applicant”), on
26 May 2001.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms V. Vandova and Ms Y. Vandova,
lawyers practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Karadzhova,
of the Ministry of Justice.
- On
9 September 2005 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- On
1 December 1994 the applicant took up the post of executive director
of the Bulgarian Publishers' Association (“the association”).
On 30 September 1996 she was dismissed.
- On 21 November 1996 the applicant filed an action for
wrongful dismissal against the association. She sought reinstatement
and damages.
- In a judgment of 4 June 1997 the Sofia District Court
held that the applicant's dismissal had been unlawful. It accordingly
ordered her reinstatement and awarded her damages.
- On
23 June 1997 the association appealed.
- On
26 June 1997 the Sofia District Court instructed the association to
pay the court fees for the appeal within a seven day time limit.
These instructions were served on the association on 27 October 1997.
- On
28 November 1997 the Sofia District Court discontinued the
proceedings, holding that the association had not paid the fees in
due time.
- The
decision to discontinue the proceedings was served on the association
on 16 March 1998. On 20 March 1998 it appealed against it to the
Sofia City Court, arguing that the fees had in fact been paid on
time. On 8 May 1998 the Sofia City Court allowed the appeal, agreeing
that the fees had been paid within the specified time-limit. On 25
May 1998 the case was returned to the Sofia District Court for
further processing.
- On
29 May 1998 the Sofia District Court instructed the association to
indicate the grounds of appeal together with the new evidence to be
gathered, as well as to present the written evidence on which the
appeal was based. These instructions were not served on the
association's counsel. According to the applicant, the court's server
returned them, noting that the concierge of the building in which the
counsel's office was purportedly situated had informed him that the
counsel's office was in fact not there. On 1 July 1998 the Sofia
District Court ordered the decision to be re served on the
counsel. It is unclear whether its order was complied with.
- On
19 April 1999 the Sofia District Court rescinded its ruling of 29 May
1998 and decided to process the appeal without further particulars by
the association. Accordingly, a copy of the appeal was served on the
applicant's counsel the same day and on 29 April 1999 the case was
sent to the Sofia City Court.
- On
18 May 1999 the Sofia City Court instructed the association to
specify within fourteen days the grounds of appeal and the evidence
to be gathered, as compulsory under an intervening amendment of the
Code of Civil Procedure. According to the applicant, an attempt to
serve these instructions on the association on 27 May 1999 failed,
because the court's process server did not find it at the specified
address. The instructions were served on 2 May 2000.
- On
12 January 2001 the Sofia City Court, finding that the association
had not complied with its instructions, discontinued the proceedings.
Its decision was served on the applicant on 17 January 2001 and on
the association on 5 February 2001. Neither of them appealed against
it. Accordingly, the judgment of the Sofia District Court of 4 June
1997 entered into force in February 2001.
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 contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 21 November 1996, when
the applicant filed her action (see paragraph 5 above) and ended in
February 2001, when the judgment of the Sofia District Court entered
into force (see paragraph 14 above). It thus lasted four years and
approximately three months.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court considers that the application is not manifestly ill founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 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 (see, among many other authorities, Ruotolo v. Italy,
judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230 D, p. 39, §
17 in limine). In civil proceedings, the courts must ensure
that the case is examined within a reasonable time, as required by
Article 6 § 1, even in systems where the procedural initiative
rests with the parties (see, among many other authorities, Buchholz
v. Germany, judgment of 6 May 1981, Series A no. 42, p. 16, §
50).
- The Court finds that the case was not factually or
legally complex. Indeed, the first instance court was able to
dispose of it in less than seven months (see paragraphs 5 and 6
above). The entirety of the ensuing delay of more than three and a
half years was due to the disorganised manner in which the courts
processed the defendant association's appeal against the
first instance court's judgment. About a year of that time was
taken up by efforts to resolve a fairly straightforward issue –
the payment of the court fees due for the appeal (see paragraphs 7 10
above). The later – and longer – part of that period
was spent in attempts to bring the association's appeal in line with
the altered requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure (see
paragraphs 11 14 above). While a change in the rules of
procedure may justify a certain delay, the Court notes that it took
the domestic courts more than two and a half years to settle the
problem. A substantial amount of that interval was lost in
difficulties – whatever their cause – with the service of
process (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). These gaps of time appear
excessive, especially in view of the fact that the proceedings
concerned the applicant's employment.
- In
the light of the criteria laid down in its case law and having
regard in particular to what was at stake for the applicant and to
the delays attributable to the authorities, the Court considers that
the length of the proceedings failed to satisfy the reasonable time
requirement. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention.
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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 683 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. She
submitted that this represented the amount which she had been awarded
by the Sofia District Court and which had remained unpaid to this
day. The applicant also claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of
non pecuniary damage.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- The
Court does not discern a sufficient causal link between the violation
found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this
claim. On the other hand, it considers that the length of the
proceedings, which concerned the applicant's employment, must have
caused her a certain amount of frustration. It therefore awards the
applicant EUR 1,400, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant sought the reimbursement of EUR 3,200 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the Court.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
her costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500, plus any tax that may be
chargeable.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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 application admissible;
- 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
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,900 (one thousand nine
hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and
expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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 3 May 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
