FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 33497/05 by Petra and Fotyo KOSTOV I against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Karel Jungwiert , Rait Maruste , Mark Villiger , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 September 2005,

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 applicants ' comments on the Government ' s unilateral declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Ms Petra Georgieva Kostova and Mr Fotyo Dimitrov Kostov , are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1940 and 1946 respectively and live in Karlovo . They are represented before the Court by Ms S . Stefanova , Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva , lawyers practising in Plovdiv . The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova , of the Ministry of Justice .

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

On 5 December 1997 the applicants, who are spouses, brought an action seeking the nullification of an order of the mayor of Karlovo .

The action was examined by three levels of court and dismissed in a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 31 March 2005.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings in their case had been excessively lengthy, and under Article 13 that they did not have effective remedies in respect of the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicants complained of the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies thereto, under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.

Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, reads:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 13 reads:

“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.”

On 11 March 2009 the President of the Fifth Section communicated the application to the Government.

On 28 December 2009 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 were involved within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the lack at [their] disposal of an effective domestic remedy for [their] complaints under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicants the amount of EUR 1,800 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]. [...]”

In their written reply dated 2 March 2010 the applicants 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 civil proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Rachevi v. Bulgaria , no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Vatevi v. Bulgaria , no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006; Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria , no. 20568/02 , 2 July 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