FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 4434/07 Georgi Yordanov GEORGIEV against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 4 February 2014 as a Committee composed of:

George Nicolaou, President, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Faris Vehabović, judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 2006,

Having regard to the initial observations submitted by the respondent Government and the reply submitted by the applicant, and the additional observations submitted by the parties after the Court invited them to do so on 12 July 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Georgi Yordanov Georgiev , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Arbanasi . He was represented before the Court by Mr Y. Yordanov , a lawyer practising in Veliko Tarnovo .

The Bulgaria n Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent s , M r V. Obretenov and Ms M. Dimova , of the Ministry of Justice.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 24 February 1995 the applicant was arrested and charged with theft. He was released on bail on 20 March 1995. By a final judgment of 5 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Cassation found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year ' s imprisonment, suspended for a period of three years. The criminal proceedings against him lasted eleven years and three months for three levels of jurisdiction.

B. Relevant domestic law

Provisions concerning remedies for length of proceedings

The relevant provisions concerning the remedies for length of proceedings available under domestic law have been summarised in the Court ' s recent decisions in the cases of Balakchiev and Others v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 65187/10, §§ 18-37, 18 June 2013) and Valcheva and Abrashev v. Bulgaria ((dec.), nos. 6194/11 and 34887/11, §§ 47-66, 18 June 2013).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant , relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. This part of the application was communicated to the Government.

The applicant also complained under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention about his pre-trial detention that ended on 20 March 1995.

The applicant further complained under Articles 6 § 3 of the Convention that the authorities refused to provide him with copies of documents which he needed in order to pursue his application before the Court.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letter dated 21 January 2012 the Government submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint , arguing that the applicant did not have the status of a victim within the meaning of the Convention.

After the Court invited the parties, by letter of 12 July 2013, to make additional observations on the complaint at issue in connection with the new remedies concerning length of proceedings introduced in Bulgarian law in 2012, the Government argued that the remedies at issue had retroactive effect and that their scope included all applications pending before the Court.

In his comments on the matter the applicant submitted inter alia that the remedies at issue were not effective in his situation because his case was still pending before the Court. In addition, the applicant argued that if he were to attempt to exhaust the remedies, those proceedings would be lengthy.

The Court recalls that in its recent decisions in the cases of Balakchiev and Others , §§ 53-85, and Valcheva and Abrashev , §§ 92-124, both cited above, it found that the remedies at issue, under sections 60a et seq. of the Judiciary Act 2007 and section 2b of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988, could be regarded as effective remedies in respect of the allegedly unreasonable length of proceedings. It found further that the remedies at issue were also available to applicants who had lodged their applications with the Court before the remedies ' introduction. The applicant has not satisfied the Court that there exist special circumstances which could absolve him from pursuing the remedies, once his complaint is dismissed as inadmissible by the Court.

It follows from the above that the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings must be rej ected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

The applicant also complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention about his pre-trial detention that ended on 20 March 1995 and that the authorities refused to provide him with copies of documents which he needed in order to pursue his application before the Court.

The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by the applicant. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Fatoş Aracı George Nicolaou Deputy Registrar President