FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 24447/06 Lyubima Yordanova DIMITROVA against Bulgaria and 6 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:

George Nicolaou , President, Ledi Bianku , Vincent A. D e Gaetano , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the appended applications, communicated as part of the grouped communications in Dimitrova-Mihova and 13 other applications v. Bulgaria (no. 8250/05 and others) and Vasilevi and 15 other applications v. Bulgaria (no. 15423/07 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:

FACTS AND 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 V. Bogorov and Ms V. Ko eva . The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented 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 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the lack of effective remedies in relation to the length and about the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights. 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 28 and 30 May 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 the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights 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, two of the applicants accepted the compensation proposed. The other applicants either disagreed with the declarations on various grounds and requested the Court to pursue the examination of their cases 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 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 applications 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).

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, for example, 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, the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length and the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights.

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 in the light of all material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that these parts of the applications should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to 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 under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in relation to the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights;

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 George Nicolaou 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.

24447/06

31/05/2006

Lyubima Yordanova DIMITROVA

1949Sofia

30/11/2000 -22/05/2006

Labour dispute

5 y ears and 5 months

( 3 levels of jurisdiction)

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

28 May 2012

1,000

2.

41934/07

03/09/2007

Mitko Yotov

KINOV

1945Lilyache

10/01/2002 - 03/05/2007

Labour dispute - dismissal

5 years and 3 months

( 3 levels of jurisdiction)

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

Art. 13

(lack of effective remedies in respect of length)

28 May 2012

800

3.

52962/07

16/11/2007

Todor Tsvetkov KOSTOV

1934Haskovo

07/06/1994 - 29/05/2007

Civil proceedings for declaring a divorce agreement null and void and rei vindicatio

12 years and 11 months

( 3 level s of jurisdiction)

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

28 May 2012

2,800

4.

3387/08

14/12/2007

Dimitar Petrov SHOPOV

1949Sofia

10/12/1994 - 29/06/2007

Labour dispute - dismissal

12 years and 6 months

( 3 levels of jurisdiction)

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

28 May 2012

6,100

5.

4810/08

07/01/2008

Boyanka Dimitrova

RADEVA

1933Plovdiv

19/08/1996

(civil claimant) - 21/05/2003

(discontinuation of the proceedings)

17/12/2004 (reopening) - 16/07/2007

(final judgment in the criminal proceedings –

no examination of the applicant ’ s civil claim)

12/01/2009

(lodging of the same civil claim with the civil courts) - 20/07/2011

(final judgment on the merits of the civil claim)

Civil c laimant in criminal proceedings

Overall period during which the applicant ’ s civil claim was under consideration

11 years and 9 months

( 3 levels of jurisdiction)

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

28 May 2012

4,800

6.

6391/08

07/12/2007

Momka Bon eva TINCHEVA

1953Gabrovo

17/05/2002 - 22/06/2007

Labour dispute - dismissal

5 years and

1 month

( 3 levels of jurisdiction)

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

Art. 13

(lack of effective remedies in respect of length)

30 May 2012

1,300

7.

8618/08

23/08/2007

Lyubomir Stanev ZHEKOV (II)

1949Sofia

22/09/1994 - 29/06/2009

Civil proceedings for establishment of ownership and boundaries

14 years and 9 months

( 3 levels of jurisdiction)

Art. 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

Art. 1 Prot. 1

(pe aceful enjoyment of posessions )

28 May 2012

7,200