FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 57668/00 by Nadia Mihailova SHANKOVA against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section), sitting on 18 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen , President , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr R. Maruste , Mr M. Villiger, judges , Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 October 1999,

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 parties ’ observations and the correspondence in this case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Nadia Mihailova Shankova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Sofia . She was represented before the Court by Mr A. Terziiski, a lawyer practising in Sofia . The respondent Government were represented by their agent, Mrs M. Karadjova, of the Ministry of Justice.

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

1. The events of 27 December 1993

On 27 December 1993, between 4 and 5 a.m., the applicant ’ s son, Mr Georgiev, was stabbed and killed in his mother ’ s house. Another person, Mr P., was also stabbed. The applicant, her brother and her nephew were among the many participants in the incident, which happened during a fight that had erupted between two groups. Several persons were injured. It appears that the applicant ’ s family and friends had attacked a Mr D. ’ s family and friends outside Mr D. ’ s house.

Following the incident the applicant ’ s son and Mr P. were brought to a hospital. The applicant ’ s son died from his injuries. Mr P. recovered after having spent one month in the hospital.

The police was alerted shortly after the incident and an investigator arrived and conducted searches within hours of the events. The investigator took samples of blood traces found on the spot.

On the day of the incident the applicant and other persons were questioned. Some of the witnesses indicated that Mr D. had been the murderer. Mr D. was also questioned. He stated that he had had a knife in his hand during the fight but did not remember having stabbed anyone. Later in the day the police found the knife.

2. The criminal proceedings

On 28 December 1993 Mr D. was charged with murder and remanded in custody.

On 12 and 31 January 1994 the investigator questioned Mr D. He admitted having stabbed the victim but maintained that had done so in self-defence. Other persons had attacked him and his relatives with axes and a gun.

On 9 February 1994 a prosecutor of the Sofia City Prosecutor ’ s Office ordered Mr D. ’ s release on bail. He paid the recognisance and was released on 17 February 1994.

On 4 July 1994 the supervising prosecutor instructed the investigator to question other persons.

On 10 March 1995 a prosecutor ordered the suspension of the investigation on the ground that Mr P., who had been stabbed during the incident, could not be found. The prosecutor noted that Mr P. had been charged with murder in another case and that he could not be found despite an arrest warrant having been issued.

In October 1997 the applicant submitted to the Sofia City Prosecutor ’ s Office a complaint, insisting on the investigation of her son ’ s murder. It appears that a separate file was opened upon her request but that no link was made with the existing investigation and the applicant was not informed of the developments in it.

On 8 April 2003 the Sofia City Prosecutor ’ s Office wrote to the Sofia police asking them to find the whereabouts of Mr P. On 21 May 2003 the police replied that Mr. P had been found at an address in Sofia . On 28 May 2003 the investigation resumed.

Mr P. was questioned on 10 September 2003. He stated that he had been stabbed by Mr D. He also stated that he had not been hiding and had been available at his address. Also, during the relevant period he had been questioned in respect of other criminal proceedings.

In September 2003 Mr D. failed to appear when summoned for questioning.

On 13 November 2003 Mr D. appeared before the investigator who charged him with the attempted murder of Mr P. The investigator noted that Mr D. had paid the recognisance fixed in 1994 and did not consider it necessary to impose another measure to secure his appearance in the proceedings against him.

On 2 December 2003 the investigator completed his work on the case and transmitted the file to the prosecutor proposing that Mr D. should be indicted.

On 31 December 2003 the prosecutor referred the case back to the investigator as he had failed to clarify whether Mr D. had been attacked by the victims.

On 27 February 2004 a cross-examination of several persons could not proceed as Mr P., who had been remanded in custody in another case, was not brought for questioning.

The accused person, the applicant and several witnesses were heard by the investigator in the beginning of March 2004. It transpired from the statements given that the applicant had also taken part in the fight on 27 December 1993.

The investigator modified the charges, considering that the case concerned death resulting from a disproportionate reaction to an attack (punishable under Article 119 of the Criminal Code) and not premeditated murder (punishable under Article 116 of the Criminal Code). On 26 March 2004 the investigator proposed to the prosecutor to indict Mr D. under the modified charges.

The prosecutor and the accused reached a plea bargain under which Mr D. would be convicted and sentenced to three years ’ imprisonment, suspended. The agreement was submitted to the Sofia City Court.

On 17 June 2004 the court refused to approve the settlement stating that the facts demonstrated that Mr D. had acted proportionally to the nature and intensity of the attack. The case was referred back to the investigator.

On 26 September 2004 the investigator admitted to the file an opinion of an expert in psychiatry on the accused person ’ s mental health.

On 6 October 2004 the investigator modified the charges, considering that the case concerned death resulting from premeditated bodily injury (under Article 118 of the Criminal Code).

On 20 October 2004 the prosecutor ordered additional cross-examinations of witnesses.

Having conducted the repeated questioning of several witnesses, on 27 December 2004 the investigator submitted the file to the prosecutor proposing indictment.

On 10 January 2005 the prosecutor, considering that only some of the cross-examinations of witnesses he had ordered had been conducted, referred the case back to the investigator.

On 25 February 2005 the investigator again proposed that Mr D. should be indicted. An indictment was submitted to the Sofia City Court soon thereafter.

According to the latest information submitted by the parties, the Sofia City Court listed its first hearing in the case for 15 June 2005.

3. Correspondence sent to the applicant by the Registry

The last letter received from the applicant dates from 20 September 2005.

In March 2007 the Registry of the Court wrote to the applicant ’ s legal representative requesting information about new developments since June 2005. No reply was received.

The request was reiterated by registered letter in June 2007 which contained a warning that the Court might decide to strike the application out of its list of cases where the circumstances indicated that the applicant d id not intend to pursue the application . No reply was received. The postal receipt was returned with the mention that the addressee had not collected the letter.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to discharge their positive obligation to protect life as they had not undertaken an effective and timely investigation of her son ’ s murder and had not punished the perpetrator. The applicant relied on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention.

The applicant also complained, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, that the ineffective investigation operated as a bar to her access to the civil courts, as it was allegedly not possible to bring an action for damages against the perpetrator.

T HE LAW

The Court notes that no reply was received from the applicant when she was requested to inform the Court of relevant developments and that the registered letter sent to her legal representative was returned undelivered.

Having regard to the above circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing his application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention. By reference to Article 37 §§ 1(a), the Court considers that the case should be struck out of its list of cases. It finds no particular reasons concerning respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which would require further examination of the present application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

For these re asons, the Court unanimously

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

Claudia W esterdiek Peer L orenzen Registrar President