FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2042/05 by Vasko Dimitrov POPOV and Others against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 August 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Renate Jaeger , Rait Maruste , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , Ganna Yudkivska , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2004 ,

Having regard to the Government ' s request to strike the case out of the list of cases and the text of their unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the application,

Having regard to the applicant ' s comments on the Government ' s unilateral declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant s , Mr Vasko Dimitrov Popov, Mr Yosif Rangelov Angelov and Mr Stefan Mitkov Todorov , are a Bulgarian national s who w ere born in 1967, 1937 and 1967 respectively and live in Plovdiv . They are represented before the Court by Mrs S. Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov , lawyers practising in Plovdiv . The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs S. Atanasova , of the Ministry of Justice .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Following a theft of metal nets used in constuction from a factory in Plovdiv , on 8 October 1996 the stolen materials were found in possession of the applicants and were seized. On the same day the applicants were questioned and admitted to the theft.

On 14 October 1996 a preliminary investigation ( предварително следствие ) was opened against the applicants in that connection.

Apparently, thereafter the case remained dormant.

On 17 and 22 October 2001 the applicants were charged with theft and were questioned.

Thereafter, a number of investigative actions were undertaken.

On 10 January 2002 the applicants ' case was brought before the Plovdiv District Court.

The court held at least five hearings, four of which were adjourned – one due to improper summoning and three - as the second applicant ' s lawyer was not present.

At the hearing on 23 August 2004 the District Court approved a plea bargain agreement and sentenced the first applicant to six months ' imprisonment and the second and third applicants to three months ' imprisonment, suspended for a period of three years.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant s complained under Article s 6 § 1 and 13 about the alleged excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them and the lack of effective remedies in that respect.

THE LAW

The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.

On 3 February 2010 the Court received a unilateral declaration from the Government made with a view to resolving the application. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration, in particular, read:

“[...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] its acknowledgment of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicants was involved. At the same time, the Government admit that in the particular circumstances of the case the complaint about the length of the proceedings has not been redressed at the domestic level as required by Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicants Vasko Dimitrov Popov, Yosif Rangelov Angelov and Stefan Mitkov Todorov the amount of [...] EUR 5,100 which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court ' s case law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian [levs] at the exchange rate applicable at the time of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicants. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the [Convention]. [...]

The Government, therefore, request that this application be struck out of the Court ' s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention. [...]”

In their written reply dated 2 March 2010 the applicant s requested the Court to continue examining the case.

The Court recalls that Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention enables it to strike a case out of its list where:

“[...] for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:

“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

The Court also recalls that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

Having regard to the acknowledgements contained in the Government ' s declaration, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(c).

In view of its extensive and clear case law on length of criminal proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria , nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 23 September 2004 , Balabanov v. Bulgaria , no. 70843/01 , 3 July 2008 and Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria , nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05 , 22 October 2009 ), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application ( Article 37 § 1 in fine ) . Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

             Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President