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 ARABADZHIEV AND ALEXIEV v. BULGARIA
(Application
no. 20484/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
December 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Arabadzhiev and Alexiev v. Bulgaria,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 20484/05) 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 two Bulgarian
nationals, Mr Ivan Delev Arabadzhiev and Mr Grigor Dimitrov Alexiev
(“the applicants”), on 10 Mai 2005.
- The
applicants were represented by Mrs S. Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov,
lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M.
Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
- On
11 March 2009 the
President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol no.
14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1963 and 1964 respectively and live in
Plovdiv.
- On
3 October 1994 a conflict arose between the
applicants and other individuals, on the one hand, and four
policemen, on the other hand, while the latter were trying to arrest
a wanted person. The first applicant was arrested. On the next day he
was charged with hooliganism and obstruction of public authorities
and was released on bail. On 10 October 1994 the second applicant was
questioned and the same charges were brought against him. The case
remained dormant until 2002.
- In
July and August 2002 several witnesses were questioned. In September
and November 2002 and in February and March 2003 the investigator
reformulated the charges against the applicants and questioned them.
On 14 June 2003 the public prosecutor filed an indictment against
them.
- The
Plovdiv District Court conducted two hearings and on 18 November
2004 approved a plea bargain agreement between the applicants and the
public prosecutor and discontinued the proceedings. The applicants
were punished by three months’ imprisonment.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings against them
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 ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
- The
Government did not comment.
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 it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court finds that the period to be taken into consideration began on 3
October 1994 in respect of the first applicant and on 10
October 2004 in respect of the second applicant (see paragraph 5
above, also Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, §
95, 28 June 2007; and Filipov v. Bulgaria, no. 40495/04,
§ 34, 10 June 2010). The period ended on 18 November 2004 in
respect of both applicants (see paragraph 7
above). It thus lasted more than ten years and one month for a
preliminary investigation and one level of jurisdiction.
- 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 applicants and the relevant authorities (see,
among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
- 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, among many others, Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria,
nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05, §§ 17-26, 22 October 2009; and
Stefanov and Yurukov v. Bulgaria, no.
25382/04, § 17, 1 April 2010). The instant case was not
complex and there appear to be no significant delays attributable to
the applicants. The main reason why the charges against them were not
determined for such a long time was the fact that between October
1994 and July 2002 the case remained dormant (see paragraphs 5 and 6
above). The Government have not provided any explanation for this
gap.
- Having
regard to the above considerations and its case-law on the subject,
the Court considers that the length of the proceedings against the
applicants was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement.
- There
has therefore been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants further complained of the lack of an effective remedy in
respect the excessive length of the proceedings against them. They
relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“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.”
- The
Government did not comment.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
- The
Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy
before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement
under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR
2000-XI). Referring to its reasoning in other cases against Bulgaria
where it found that at the material time and in similar circumstances
Bulgarian law did not provide for an effective remedy (see, for
example, Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 40-43, 27
January 2005; and Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria, cited
above, §§ 32-34), the Court sees no reason to reach
a different conclusion in the present case.
- Accordingly,
there has been a violation of Article 13 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
applicants claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non pecuniary
damage sustained as a result of the unreasonable length of the
proceedings against them. They further claimed EUR 6,000 for the
non pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the lack of
effective remedies against the excessive length of the proceedings.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- The
Court considers that the applicants must have suffered certain
non pecuniary damage as a result of the excessive length of the
proceedings against them and the lack of effective remedies in this
respect. Taking into account the particular circumstances and the
awards made in similar cases, and ruling on an equitable basis, as
required under Article 41, the Court awards each of the applicants
EUR 2,500, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed EUR 3,150 in lawyer’s fees for the
proceedings before the Court and EUR 155 for other costs, among which
translation of the observations, postage and office materials. In
support of this claim the applicants presented an agreement
with their lawyers and a time-sheet for forty five hours at a rate of
EUR 70 per hour. The applicants requested that
the amount awarded for costs and expenses under this head be paid
directly to their lawyers, Ms S. Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov.
-
The Government contested these claims as excessive.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of 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 documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500, covering costs
and expenses under all heads. This sum is to be paid into the bank
account of the applicants’ legal representatives,
Ms S. Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov.
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 on account of the excessive length of
the criminal proceedings against the applicants;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention, on account of the lack of
effective remedies in respect of the length of the proceedings;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be
converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement:
(i) to
Mr Arabadzhiev, EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non pecuniary damage;
(ii) to
Mr Alexiev, EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of non pecuniary damage;
(iii) jointly
to both applicants, EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into
the bank account of their legal representatives, Ms S. Stefanova
and Mr A. Atanasov;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts 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 applicants’
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 December 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
