CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 février 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC581DE9F { width:173.26pt; display:inline-block } .sAFA34012 { width:196.47pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .s8EB571EB { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s265AD245 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s581CA061 { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2074955B { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .sAE73F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .sC3E07CE2 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s68FE8614 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s34C6B0A7 { height:17.95pt } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s3614B0A7 { height:17.75pt } .sB8F4B0A7 { height:16.25pt } .s97C4337 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4AC8B0A7 { height:18.45pt } .s4E9C9A20 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s4366C4C0 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .sD68C3E0C { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 10450/05 , 2500/06, 13487/06, 17926/06, 25624/06, 38037/06, 42948/06, 42961/06, 746/07, 1757/07, 4667/07 and 6506/07 Nedyalka Mihaylova KARAVASILEVA and 11 other applications against Bulgaria (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   February 2012 as a committee composed of:   David Thór Björgvinsson, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the applications listed in the table below, Having regard to the pilot judgment in the case of Finger v. Bulgaria , no.   37346/05, § 135, 10 May 2011, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Bulgarian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the table below. Some of the applicants were legally represented. The legal representatives involved were Ms. S. Stefanova, Mr   V. Stoyanov, Mr L. Varnev, Mr M. Ekimdjiev, Ms. K. Boncheva and Mr D. Mitkov. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms M. Dimova and Ms M. Kotseva, of the Ministry of Justice. The essential information as to the length of the proceedings in which the applicants were involved is indicated in the attached table. COMPLAINTS The applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1, complained about the length of civil proceedings, and in some cases, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, about the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights and under Article 13 about the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length. Some applicants also raised other complaints. THE LAW 1. The Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background. 2. Following the Finger judgment cited above, notice of the applications, insofar as they concern the complaints about excessive length of civil proceedings, their alleged impact on property rights and the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length, was given to the Government and the parties were invited to secure a friendly settlement. On various dates (see table below) the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Bulgaria in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications against an undertaking by the Government to pay them ex gratia sums, which would cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The sums would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. This payment would constitute the final resolution of the cases. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of these parts of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list, insofar as they concern the complaints about excessive length of civil proceedings, their alleged impact on property rights and the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length 3. Having carefully examined the applicants’ remaining complaints, in the light of all material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that the remainder of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously   Decides to join the applications;   Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in respect of the complaints concerning excessive length of civil proceedings, the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights and the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length;   Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible .   Fatoş Aracı   David Thór Björgvinsson Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name, year of birth, place of residence Beginning and end of the domestic proceedings Subject matter of domestic proceedings Length of proceedings and instances concerned Communicated complaints Date of applicant friendly settlement declaration Date of Government’s friendly settlement declaration Friendly settlement sums (in euros) 1. 10450/05 23/02/2005 Nedyalka Mihaylova KARAVASILEVA 1941 Plovdiv 20/06/1998 – 14/01/2005 Labour dispute 6 years and 6 months (3 levels of jurisdiction) Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length) 2 August 2011 9 November 2011 2,100 2. 2500/06 30/12/2005 Ivan Yordanov ANTONOV 1937 Sofia 19/01/1993 – First phase – 13/02/2006 Second phase – pending before the Sofia City Court according to information of September 2007 Partitioning of property proceedings Ongoing 15 years (3 levels of jurisdiction for the first phase and 2 levels of jurisdiction for the second phase) as of the applicant’s letter of September 2007 Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length)   Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (impact of length on property rights) 29 August 2011 15 November 2011 5,000 3. 13487/06 17/02/2006 Yordanka Angelova MILANOVA 1954 Varna 09/09/1992 – Last hearing by the second instance held in November 1995, no judgment was delivered. In April 2005 the applicant requested information and it was discovered that the case file was missing. On 29/02/08 the Regional Court refused to restore the case. Partitioning of property proceedings about 15 years (2 levels of jurisdiction) Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length)   Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (impact of length on property rights) 25 August 2011 9 November 2011 3,500 4. 17926/06 07/03/2006 Nikola Konstantinov ZLATAREV 1937 Bourgas 15/09/1998 – 12/09/2005 Restitution and rei-vindicatio proceedings 7 years (3 levels of jurisdiction) Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length) 20 August 2011 9 November 2011 1,200 5. 25624/06 06/03/2006 Ganka Kirilova NINOVA 1932 Plovdiv 1) First set of proceedings 10/08/2000 – pending before the second instance court according to the last information received by the applicant   2) Second set of proceedings 21/08/2000 – 28/03/2007 Property dispute in respect of restitution Over 8 years for the first set of proceedings (2   levels of jurisdiction) as of the applicant’s letter of January 2009   6 years and 7   months for the second set of proceedings (3   levels of jurisdiction) Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length)   Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (impact of length on property rights) 18 August 2011 9 November 2011 4,500 6. 38037/06 16/09/2006 Brigita RADEVA-STANCHEVA Sofia 01/02/1999 – 17/03/2006 Restitution proceedings 7 years and 1 month (2 levels of jurisdiction) Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) 26 August 2011 21 November 2011 2,400 7. 42948/06 12/10/2006 Tsonka Ilieva DANEVA 1960 Varna 24/04/1998 – Ongoing as of the last information received by the applicant in December 2006 Civil proceedings for damages joined with criminal proceedings 8 years and 7   months (1 level of jurisdiction) as of the applicant’s letter of December 2006 Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length) 29 July 2011 21 November 2011 4,500 8. 42961/06 11/10/2006 Lyubomir Zhelyazkov VALKOV 1927 Sofia   Boyka Stamenova BOTEVA 1927 Sofia 17/08/1992 – 09/05/2006 Restitution and rei-vindicatio proceedings 13 years and 8   months (3 levels of jurisdiction) Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (impact of length on property rights) 27 September 2011 21 November 2011 6,400 9. 746/07 04/11/2006 Katya Ivaylova IVANOVA 1989 Sofia   Mariyana Hristova MOLLOVA 1966 Sofia 08/11/1995 – 06/05/2006 (the date on which the totality of the judgment of the Sofia City Court became final) Civil proceedings for damages as a result of a traffic accident 10 years and 5   months (2 levels of jurisdiction) Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length) 1 August 2011 9 November 2011 5,500 10. 1757/07 05/12/2006 Radka Evtimova BOTEVA 1952 Kazanlak 11/01/2001 – 23/06/2006 Labour dispute 5 years and 5   months (3 levels of jurisdiction) Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length) 29 July 2011 9 November 2011 1,500 11. 4667/07 08/01/2007 Krasimir Rusev UZUNOV 1963 Kazanluk 04/06/1997 – 22/08/2006 (the date on which the totality of the judgment of the Sofia City Court became final) Civil proceedings for damages as a result of a traffic accident 9 years and 2   months (2 levels of jurisdiction) Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) 1 August 2011 9 November 2011 3,900 12. 6506/07 13/01/2007 Dimitar Pavlov YANAKIEV 1936 Sofia 17/10/1996 – 25/07/2006 Labour dispute 9 years and 9   months (3 levels of jurisdiction) Art. 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) 16 August 2011 9 November 2011 3,600