FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 70721/01 by Georgi Boichev GEORGIEV against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen , President , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr R. Maruste , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , Mrs R. Jaeger , Mr M. Villiger , judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2001,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, M r Georgi Boichev Georgiev , is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1945 and lives in the village of Kochovo . He is represented before the Court by Ms E. Nedeva , a lawyer practising in Plovdiv . The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Kotzeva , of the Ministry of Justice .

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

1. The preliminary investigation against the applicant

On 20 June 1997 a preliminary investigation for the theft of the anodes was opened against the applicant and five other persons.

Between July and October 1997 the investigator in charge ordered a fingerprint expert report, a report on the value of the allegedly stolen objects and a psychiatric expert report. On 24 October 1997 the proceedings were terminated with respect to one of the co-accused who had been mentally ill.

The results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the applicant on 26 May 1998. A bill of indictment was prepared by the Plovdiv District Prosecutor ’ s Office on 6 July 1998 .

It appears that by a separate decision of 6 July 1998 the District Prosecutor ’ s Office terminated the proceedings against Mr M. The applicant appealed to the Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office against this partial termination but his appeal was apparently not examined.

2. The applicant ’ s trial

The first hearing of the Plovdiv District Court , scheduled for 5 October 1998 , was adjourned because one of the co-accused had not received a copy of the bill of indictment prior to the hearing.

The hearings listed for 16 November 1998 and 11 January 1999 were adjourned because several witnesses had not been duly summoned.

A hearing listed for 25 February 1999 was adjourned because one of the co-accused had fallen ill.

Hearings were held on 30 April, 30 June and 30 September 1999. The court ordered a psychiatric expert report on the mental state of one of the co-accused, heard witnesses and admitted expert evidence.

On 15 December 1999 the court, sitting in private, adjourned the hearing scheduled for 17 December 1999 because a judge was busy with other matters.

A hearing listed for 22 March 2000 failed to take place because the counsel of one of the accused had not been summoned and did not appear.

A hearing scheduled for 19 May 2000 was adjourned because of a change in the composition of the court. Pursuant to Article 257 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the examination of the case had to restart.

A hearing listed for 14 September 2000 failed to take place because one of the co- accused , Mr D., did not appear. The court bailed him and ordered that he should be brought by force for the next hearing.

Mr D. did not appear at the hearing s of 17 November 2000 , 14 February 2001 and 4 May 2001 and they were adjourned . The court instructed the police to bring the co- accused by force and sought an explanation from the local police director as to why its order had not been complied with. On 4 May 2001 the court decided to remand Mr D. in custody and ordered a thorough research of his whereabouts. Thereafter he was arrested.

A hearing scheduled for 21 January 2002 failed to take place because Mr D. was not brought from the Plovdiv prison where he was being held in custody.

On 20 September 2002 the court considered that procedural irregularities required the remittal of the case to the Plovdiv District Prosecutor ’ s Office.

In August 2003 the prosecutor prepared a new indictment and submitted it to the Plovdiv District Court.

In the resumed trial, a hearing was scheduled for 12 March 2004. It was adjourned because the counsel of one of the accused, Mr G., had refused to represent him and an ex officio counsel had to be appointed by the court.

A hearing listed for 27 September 2004 failed to take place because the applicant ’ s counsel was unable to attend.

On 1 February 2005 the court held a hearing. It admitted expert evidence and questioned witnesses and experts.

The hearings scheduled for 9 May and 20 September 2005 did not take place owing to defective summonsing.

The court held a hearing on 3 November 2005 and questioned two witnesses. The hearing was adjourned because an expert had failed to appear.

On 11 July 2006 the proceedings were terminated following a plea bargain between the prosecutor and the applicant. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, suspended.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complain ed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and under Article 13 about the lack of effective remedies in this respect .

THE LAW

On 17 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed for the applicant by his counsel:

“I, Georgi Boichev Georgiev , note that the Government of Bulgaria are prepared to pay me the sum of 4 , 0 00 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover 3,000 (three thousand) euros in respect of any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as 1,000 (one thousand) euros for costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian lev at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. The part concerning costs and expenses, in the amount of 1,000 euros , will be paid directly into the bank account of my legal representative, Ms Emilia Nedeva , and the amount of 3 , 0 00 euros will be paid to me . The whole sum 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 25 October 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government, which had been approved by the Council of Ministers of Bulgaria and had been signed by their Agent, Ms M. Kotzeva , of the Ministry of Justice:

“The Government of Bulgaria offer to pay 4 , 0 00 euros to Mr Georgi Boichev Georgiev with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover 3 , 0 00 (three thousand) euros in respect of any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as 1,000 (one thousand) euros for costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian lev at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. The part concerning costs and expenses, in the amount of 1,000 euros , will be paid directly into the applicant ’ s lawyer ’ s bank account and the amount of 3 , 0 00 euros will be paid to the applicant. The whole sum 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 reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case 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