FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 15634/05 Mariyka Zhelyazkova DOBREVA against Bulgaria and 7 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 March 2013 as a Committee composed of:

David Thór Björgvinsson , President, Vincent A. D e Gaetano , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , judges and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the appended applications, communicated as part of the grouped communication in Dobreva and 11 other applications v. Bulgaria (no. 15634/05 and others),

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ replies to the declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicants are Bulgarian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the appended table. Some of the applicants were legally represented. The legal representatives involved were Mr G. Kerelov , Mr M. Ekimdzhiev , Ms K. Boncheva , Mr T. Valchev , Ms T. Prokopieva ‑ Krasteva and Mr R. Dishovski . The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were re presented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova , of the Ministry of Justice.

The applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complained about the length of civil proceedings, and in some cases under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of effective remedies in relation to the length. These parts of the applications had been communicated to the Government.

The essential information as to the length of the proceedings in which the applicants were involved is indicated in the attached table.

Some applicants also raised additional complaints.

THE LAW

The Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters dated 15 November 2012 and 16 November 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. By these declarations the Government acknowledged the excessive length of the civil proceedings and, in some cases, the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length and offered the applicants various compensation sums (for the sums, see the appended table).

The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases. They suggested that the declarations might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the cases of the Court ’ s list, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

The declarations also provided that the compensation sums were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as, costs and expenses, where applicable, and would be free of any taxes that may be chargeable, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement . The sums would 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them 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.

When invited to submit comments in reply to the Government ’ s unilateral declarations, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations on various grounds or did not provide any comments.

The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of parag raph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications” .

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 applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey , [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec .) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec .) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Bulgaria , its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in civil proceedings (see as recent authorities Nikolov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 44184/05, 22250/06 and 37182/07 , 21 February 2012 and Finger v. Bulgaria , no. 37346/05, §§ 93-96 , no. 37346/05 , 10 May 2011, with further references ).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list in so far as they concern the excessive length of the civil proceedings, and the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length.

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec .), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

Having carefully examined the applicants ’ remaining complaints, having regard to all the evidence 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 these parts of the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declarations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and in some cases under Article 13 in relation to the applicants ’ complaints concerning length of proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they relate to the above complaints, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Fatoş Aracı David Thór Björgvinsson Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s name, year of birth, place of residence

Beginning and end of the domestic proceedings

Subject matter of domestic proceedings

Length of proceedings and instances concerned

Communicated complaints

Date of Government ’ s unilateral declaration

Compensation sums offered by the Government

(in euros )

1 .

15634/05

04/04/2005

Mariyka Zhelyazkova DOBREVA

1951Pazardzhik

1)First set of proceedings

21/05/1998-

10/01/2005

2)Second set of proceedings

12/1999-

4/10/2004

1)Labour dispute

(disciplinary proceedings)

2) Labour dispute

(dismissal)

1) 6 years and 7 months (three levels of jurisdiction)

2) 4 years and 10 months (three levels of jurisdiction)

Pending before the Supreme Court of Cassation (“the SCC”) for 2 years and 4 months

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

16 November 2012

900

2.

22316/06

23/05/2006

Kancho Stanev KRASTEV

1954Yambol

06/2003-18/12/2006

Labour dispute

3 years, and 6 months (three levels of jurisdiction)

Pending before the SCC for 2 years and 8 months

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

Art. 13

(lack of effective remedies in respect of length)

15 November 2012

600

3.

6194/07

11/01/2007

Lilyana Stefanova ANGELOVA

1954Sofia

Unspecified but no later than 8 October 2001-

11/07/2006

Labour dispute

about 4 years and 9 months

(three levels of jurisdiction)

Pending before the SCC for 2 years and 7 months

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

Art. 13

(lack of effective remedies in respect of length)

15 November 2012

1100

4.

19298/07

19/04/2007

Milka Ivanova TODOROVA

1950Varna

26/07/2002-

28/11/2006

Labour dispute

4 years and 4 months (three levels of jurisdiction)

Pending before the SCC for 2 years and 9 months

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

Art. 13

(lack of effective remedies in respect of length)

16 November 2012

1100

5.

7666/08

20/12/2007

Stanyu Mitev STANEV

1948Ruse

2/12/2003-

10/07/2007

Labour dispute

3 years and 7 months (three levels of jurisdiction)

Pending before the SCC for 2 years, 10 months

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies in respect of length)

15 November 2012

1100

6.

51280/08

03/10/2008

Nina Rashkova UZUNOVA

1951Sofia

27/05/2004-

22/05/2008

Labour dispute

3 years and 11 months

(three levels of jurisdiction)

Pending before the SCC for 2 years and 11 months

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

16 November 2012

600

7.

22736/09

20/01/2009

Ivan Peychev

IVANOV

1938Chirpan

unidentified date after 06/2002-

25/07/2008

Labour dispute

6 years (three levels of jurisdiction)

Pending before the SCC for about 2 years

and 10 months

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

15 November 2012

800

8.

34540/09

07/05/2009

Galimir Kolev GEORGIEV

1963Ruse

unidentified date in 12/2003-

06/11/2008

Labour dispute

about 4 years, 11 months,

(three levels of jurisdiction)

Pending before the SCC for about 3 years

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings )

16 November 2012

1100