FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos . 21757/08 and 27872/08 Vanko Hristov RUSEV against Bulgaria and E lena Staneva STOYANOVA against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 December 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Päivi Hirvelä , President, Zdravka Kalaydjieva , Paul Mahoney , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the appended applications, communicated as part of the grouped communication in Tsochev and 15 other applications v. Bulgaria (no. 45334/06 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. The second applicant was legally represented by Mr L. Novikov . The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova , of the Ministry of Justice.

The applicants expressly or in substance complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of criminal proceedings against them. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the first applicant also complained of the lack of effective remedies in relation to the length of the proceedings.

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

On 26 March 2012 the President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the applicants ’ complaints to the Bulgarian Government.

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 20 September 2012 and 21 September 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 criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length.

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 disagreed with the declarations on various grounds and requested the Court to pursue the examination of their cases.

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 paragraph 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case 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 criminal proceedings (see, Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria , nos. 48059/06 and 2708/09 , §§ 70-73, 10 May 2011 , with further references ).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, 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 of cases.

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).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declarations under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention 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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Fatoş Aracı Päivi Hirvelä 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.

21757/08

10/04/2008

Vanko Hristov

RUSEV

23/04/1954

Plovdiv

26/02/2002 – 06/11/2007

Criminal proceedings for embezzlement

5 years and

8 months

(two levels of jurisdiction)

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

Art. 13

(lack of effective remedies in respect of length)

20 September 2012

1,200

2.

27872/08

13/05/2008

Elena Staneva STOYANOVA

29/03/1946

Sofia

unspecified date

not later than

January 1999 – 25/02/2010

Criminal proceedings for embezzlement

at least 11 years and 1 month

(two levels of jurisdiction)

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

21 September 2012

2,500