FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 21560/03 by Evgeni Nikolaev IVANOV against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section), sitting on 18 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Snejana Botoucharova , Volodymyr Butkevych , Rait Maruste , Renate Jaeger , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 July 2003 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Evgeni Nikolaev Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Lovech. He is represented before the Court by Mr Y. Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia .

The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 7 October 1996 the applicant was arrested at the Kalotina border check-point after a customs inspection found 995 bullets for a handgun hidden inside small plastic bags in a cavity of the car of Mr P.E., with whom the applicant was travelling to Serbia .

On 9 October 1996 the applicant was charged with being an accomplice to smuggling and illegal possession of ammunition. The charges against him were amended on 10 February 1997. On an unspecified date the preliminary investigation was concluded and the case file was transferred to the Slivnitsa district public prosecutor ’ s office on 9 April 1997.

On 10 April 1997 the Slivnitsa district public prosecutor ’ s office remitted the case to the investigator as it found, inter alia , that there had been serious procedural violations.

On 27 May 1997 the applicant was once again charged with being an accomplice to smuggling and illegal possession of ammunition. The case was transferred to the Slivnitsa district public prosecutor ’ s office on an unspecified date.

The public prosecutor ’ s office filed an indictm ent against the applicant on 18 June 1997 for the offences of smuggling and illegal possession of ammunitions.

In a judgment of 1 June 1998 the Slivnitsa District Court found the applicant guilty of being an accomplice to attempted smuggling and illegal possession of ammunition and sentenced him to three years ’ imprisonment. The other defendant, Mr. P.E., was also found guilty. Both the applicant and Mr P.E. appealed against the judgment of the District Court.

In a judgment of 20 October 1998 the Sofia Regional Court quashed the judgment of the first instance court due to procedural violations and remitted the case.

Following a rehearing of the case, in a judgment of 29 November 2000 the District Court once again found the applicant guilty of being an accomplice attempted smuggling and illegal possession of ammunition and sentenced him to four years ’ imprisonment. Mr P.E. was also found guilty. Both the applicant and Mr P.E. appealed against the judgment of the District Court.

In a judgment of 14 June 2002 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of the first instance court, but reduced the applicant ’ s sentence to three years ’ imprisonment. Both the applicant and Mr P.E. filed cassation appeals against the judgment of the Regional Court .

In a final judgment of 24 April 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the defendants ’ appeals and upheld the findings and judgment of the Regional Court .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and the lack of effective remedies relating thereto.

THE LAW

On 3 September 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant ’ s counsel:

“I, Yonko Grozev, lawyer, note that the Government of Bulgaria are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 1,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Evgeni Nikolaev Ivanov with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, EUR 700 of which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 is for costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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 European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Bulgaria in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”

On 14 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government, which had been approved by the Council of Ministers of Bulgaria with a Decision of 13 February 2008 and had been signed by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice:

“The Government of Bulgaria offer to pay ex gratia 1,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Evgeni Nikolaev Ivanov with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, EUR 700 of which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 is for costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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 European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).

Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court un animously,

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

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President