JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE JAEGER AND JUDGE KALAYDJIEVA

We share the majority ' s conclusions in regard of the unreasonable length of the proceedings (paragraphs 43 ‑ 49) in so far as the impugned delays were attributable to the absence of expedience on part of the judicial authorities. But we are unable to join the majority ' s conclusion that these delays deprived him of effective access to court. The situation in the present case is clearly not essentially identical with the one in Anguelova and Dinchev where the applicants were totally dependent on the authorities ' expediency in pursuing publicly prosecutable crimes.

In the present case the applicant had a free choice between bringing a civil claim in a civil court or joining the civil claim to the criminal proceedings which are as well exclusively depending on his free decision because the applicant was simply affected by a privately prosecutable crime. Crimes which are only privately prosecutable lack the requisite importance for the prosecution to act ex officio . Criminal procedure as a whole lies in the hands of the victim who is at all times free to define timely evidence requests and to design a strategy of expediency or delays, and most importantly – whether and when to discontinue the criminal proceedings.

That is why the case has to be distinguished from the cases of Anguelova and Dinchev where the applicants were totally dependent on the authorities ' expediency in pursuing publicly prosecutable crimes. In these two cases, the fate of the applicant ' s civil claim was dependant on the public authorities ' decision to institute criminal proceedings and on the expediency with which they were pursued. In such circumstances – despite the formal accessibility of two possible avenues for compensation (in the instituted criminal proceedings or in separate civil proceedings) – the right to civil compensation may remain effectively barred as a result of the manner in which the authorities perform the instituted criminal proceedings.

In contrast to the victims of publicly prosecutable crimes who have to await the outcome of criminal proceedings, access to court for the determination of a compensation claim for victims of privately prosecutable crimes is entirely in their own hands. They are free to drop criminal prosecution which the Convention does not guarantee at all and to pursue instead their civil interests in compensation of damages.

The applicant in the present case was at all times free to choose the court to which he wished to have access. For these reasons, it cannot be said that the alleged temporary bar to the applicant ' s access to a civil court was attributable to the authorities.

[1] . On 5 July 1999 the Bulgarian lev was reval ued . One new Bulgarian lev (BGN) equals 1,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL).