Katya Georgieva PRAMATAROVA and Others v Bulgaria - 34686/05 [2010] ECHR 1743 (5 October 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 >> Katya Georgieva PRAMATAROVA and Others v Bulgaria - 34686/05 [2010] ECHR 1743 (5 October 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1743.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1743 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 34686/05 by Katya Georgieva PRAMATAROVA and Others against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010 as a Committee composed of: Rait Maruste, President, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 September 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 applicants' comments on the Government's unilateral declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Ms Katya Georgieva Pramatarova, Mr Atanas Spasov Pramatarov, Ms Liliya Asenova Deyanova and Mr Georgi Asenov Popov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1950, 1914, 1939 and 1943 respectively and live in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 14 November 1997 the applicants initiated proceedings for the restitution of two plots of land in Plovdiv expropriated from ancestors of theirs in the 1960s for the construction of blocks of flats. In a decision of 7 August 2000 the Plovdiv mayor allowed partially the applicants' request, annulling the expropriation in respect of part of the land. On 8 November 2000 the applicants lodged an appeal against the mayor's decision, seeking the restitution of the remainder of the property. The appeal, which was examined by two levels of court, was dismissed in a final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 March 2005. The domestic courts found that the restitution of the remaining land was impossible, because the blocks of flats had already been built. They refused to commission an expert opinion to establish what had been the legal basis of the expropriation. Furthermore, they considered that Ms Katya Georgieva Pramatarova was not among the heirs of the land's former owners. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the civil proceedings in their case had lasted an unreasonably long period of time and that they had not had effective remedies in that regard. Furthermore, they complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been unfair, because the courts had wrongly held that Ms Katya Georgieva Pramatarova was not a heir of the former owners, had refused to commission an additional expert opinion and had taken arbitrary decisions. The applicants also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their ancestors' property had been unlawfully taken by the State and that they had not been able to obtain its restitution. Lastly, they complained under Article 14 of the Convention that they had been discriminated against, in that the former king of Bulgaria and his sister had obtained the restitution of their family's former property under more lenient procedures than the one applicable in their case. THE LAW The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that regard. Article 6 § 1 reads, in so far as relevant: “ 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 11 March 2009 the Court communicated those complaints to the Government. On 24 March 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 applicants were 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 applicants the amount of [...] EUR 5,800 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 applicants. 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 this application be struck out of the Court's list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention. [...]” In their written reply dated 24 May 2010 the applicants requested the Court to continue examining the case. The Court notes 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 notes 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 complaints, 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; Kambourov v. Bulgaria , no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008), 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, in so far as it concerns the complaints about the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that respect (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, the application, in so far as it concerns those complaints, should be struck out of the list. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicants' complaints. However, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is 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 the remainder of the application is 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 strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaints about the length of the proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that regard; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste Deputy Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1743.html