Georgi Lazarov LAZAROV v Bulgaria - 8442/05 [2010] ECHR 876 (11 May 2010)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Georgi Lazarov LAZAROV v Bulgaria - 8442/05 [2010] ECHR 876 (11 May 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/876.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 876 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8442/05 by Georgi Lazarov LAZAROV against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Karel Jungwiert, Rait Maruste, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 February 2005, Having regard to the Government's request to strike the case out of the list of cases and the text of their unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the application, Having regard to the applicant's comments on the Government's unilateral declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Georgi Lazarov Lazarov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Velingrad. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms S. Atanasova, of the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 6 May 1998 the applicant brought proceedings for unfair dismissal. On 10 May 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the claims finding that the applicant's dismissal had been lawful. The applicant lodged an appeal. Its examination by the Pazardzhik Regional Court was however stayed as on 21 July 1999 the applicant requested that the judgment of 10 May 1999 be complemented. On 5 October 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court found the request inadmissible. On 16 May 2000 the Pazardzhik Regional Court upheld that finding. Following that, the Pazardzhik Regional Court resumed examining the applicant's appeal against the District Court's judgment of 10 May 1999. On 2 April 2002 it quashed the lower court's judgment, found the applicant's dismissal unlawful and restored him to his position. The applicant's former employer filed a cassation appeal. The Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing on 27 October 2004 and in a final judgment of 11 November 2004 upheld the Pazardzhik Regional Court's judgment. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings in his case had been excessively lengthy, and under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings. THE LAW The applicant complained of the length of the civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy therefor, under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, reads: “ In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 13 reads: “ Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” On 29 January 2009 the President of the Fifth Section communicated the application to the Government. On 11 January 2010 the Court received a unilateral declaration from the Government made with a view to resolving the application. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration, in particular, read: “ [...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] its acknowledgment of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved. At the same time, the Government admit that in the particular circumstances of the case the complaint about the length of the proceedings has not been redressed at the domestic level as required by Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 2,000 which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court's case-law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian [levs] at the exchange rate applicable at the time of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the [Convention]. The Government, therefore, request that his application be struck out of the Court's list of cases pursuant to Article 37 para. 1(c) of the Convention. [...]” In his written reply dated 12 March 2010 the applicant requested the Court to continue examining the case. He considered that the sum offered by the Government was insufficient to compensate him for the delayed examination of his case. Furthermore, he argued that if the application was struck out of the list, the Government would not take any general measures to prevent future similar violations. The Court recalls that Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention enables it to strike a case out of its list where: “ [...] for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that: “ However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” 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 (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). Having regard to the acknowledgements contained in the Government's declaration, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(c). In view of its extensive and clear case law on length of civil proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Rachevi v. Bulgaria , no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Vatevi v. Bulgaria , no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006; Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria , no. 20568/02, 2 July 2009), 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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/876.html