FIFTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 1113/04 by Petar Georgiev KRIVENCHEV against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 April 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 December 2003,

Having regard to the partial decision of 18 March 2008 ,

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, Mr Petar Georgiev Krivenchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Plovdiv . The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) we re 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.

On 10 February 1996 the applicant was run over by a car and sustained bodily injuries. On 10 October 1996 he brought an action for damages against the car ’ s driver.

In a judgment of 18 January 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court granted the claim. On 17 July 2001 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal upheld . Upon a cassation appeal by the defendant, on 21 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts ’ judgment s .

On 9 March 2004 the applicant obtained a writ of execution and on 7 April 2004 requested the opening of enforcement proceedings.

Initially, the enforcement proceedings did not yield any results. Upon appeal by the applicant against the inactivity of the enforcement judge, in a decision of 14 April 2005 the Sofia City Court established that the latter had failed to take the necessary steps to collect the debt.

Subsequently, the enforcement proceedings started yielding results and on 27 October 2006 the sum due to the applicant was paid in full .

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive.

THE LAW

The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads, in so far as relevant:

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

On 20 January 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 applicant 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 of the Convention.

Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant 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 any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant. 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 his written reply dated 11 February 2009 the applicant requested the Court to continue examining the case as he considered the sum offered by the Government insufficient to compensate him for the violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time.

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 ; Kambourov v. Bulgaria , no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008 ), 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 Rait Maruste Registrar President