CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 mai 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 141 May 2011 Finger v. Bulgaria - 37346/05 Judgment 10.5.2011 [Section IV] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to introduce effective legal remedies, conforming to the principles laid down in the Court’s case-law, for the excessive length of civil, administrative and criminal proceedings   [This summary also covers the judgment in the case of Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria , no. 48059/06 , 10 May 2011] Facts – In the Dimitrov and Hamanov case the applicants complained of the length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of an effective domestic remedy. The applicant in the Finger case made like complaints, but in respect of civil proceedings. Law – In both cases the Court found a violation of Article 6 §   1 on account of the length of the proceedings and a violation of Article   13 owing to the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the delays. Article 46: The Court noted that it had previously found breaches of Article 6 §   1 in some 130   length-of-proceedings cases concerning Bulgaria (more than 80 in respect of criminal proceedings and almost 50 in respect of civil proceedings). Some 700 further applications containing length-of-proceedings complaints were pending. These statistics indicated a systemic problem. While new legislative and organisational measures had been introduced between 2006 and 2010, it was too soon to assess their impact. The problem could not, therefore, yet be regarded as having been fully resolved. In the Dimitrov and Hamanov case the Court reiterated that there had been no mechanism available to compensate victims of excessively long criminal proceedings, or a remedy allowing a reduction of sentence on account of accumulated delays. The procedure introduced in 2003* and abolished in 2010 suffered from limitations: as an acceleratory remedy it was unable to prevent further delay or delay resulting from repeated referrals of cases back to the pre-trial stage, which was a major problem in Bulgarian criminal cases; as a compensatory remedy, it was unable to make up for delays accrued before its introduction in June 2003. While the Court welcomed the possibility for the Supreme Judicial Council inspectorate to check whether judges, prosecutors and investigators had processed the cases assigned to them without delay, such mechanisms could not be regarded as an effective remedy because they did not give the individuals concerned a personal right to compel the State to exercise its supervisory powers. The Finger case highlighted deficiencies in civil cases. For instance, the right introduced in March 2008 to ask the court to set a time-limit did not apply to delays in proceedings before the two supreme courts and there were doubts about its ability to secure the acceleration of proceedings in a number of other situations. In any event, even if operated effectively, without a concurrent remedy providing compensation for undue delays in proceedings that had already been completed, it could not solve the problem of unreasonable delay. In both cases there had been a clear need for the introduction of an acceleratory remedy and a remedy providing compensation, including for past delays. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe had very recently invited the Bulgarian authorities to complete as soon as possible the reform in order to introduce a compensatory remedy in length-of-proceedings cases. In view of the foregoing, Bulgaria was required in Dimitrov and Hamanov to introduce a remedy or combination of remedies in respect of unreasonably long criminal proceedings and in Finger to introduce a compensatory remedy in respect of unreasonably long civil proceedings. These remedies had to conform to the Court’s principles and became available within twelve months from the date the Court’s judgments in the applicants’ cases became final. The Court would continue to process similar cases pending the implementation of the relevant measures by Bulgaria. Article 41: EUR 6,400 to Mr   Dimitrov, EUR 600 to Mr   Hamanov and EUR 1,200 to Ms   Finger in respect of non-pecuniary damage. * The procedure was introduced in June 2003 under Article   239a of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure and was superseded in April 2006 by Articles   368-69 of the 2005 Code of Criminal Procedure. It was abolished on 28   May 2010.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes