BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF DONKA STEFANOVA v. BULGARIA
(Application
no. 19256/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1
October 2009
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Donka Stefanova v. Bulgaria,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and Claudia
Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 September 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 19256/03) against the
Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by Ms Donka Zhekova Stefanova, a
Bulgarian national born in 1927 and living in Sofia
(“the applicant”), on 3
June 2003. On 3 March 2006 the applicant died. On
16 December 2007 two of her daughters, Ms Nevenka Nikolaeva
Stefanova Istatkova and Ms Anka Nikolaeva Stefanova Petrova,
expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings in her stead.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr D. Mitkov and Ms V. Dimitrova,
lawyers practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M.
Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
- On
12 March 2007 the
President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 3 of the Convention).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- On
31 July 1996 the applicant was run over by a motorist, Mr A.I. As a
result of the accident, her clothes were damaged and became unusable.
Both of her arms, her right ear and her right leg were bruised.
Shortly after that she was admitted to a hospital, where she spent a
week, and was found to have a broken ankle and a traumatic brain
injury.
- After
criminal proceedings which were later converted to
administrative-penal ones, in a judgment of 10 March 1997 the Sofia
District Court found A.I. responsible for the accident and fined him.
- On
4 June 1997 the applicant brought a civil action against A.I. and his
insurer. She sought 500,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL)
for pecuniary and BGL 2,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
- Between
October 1997 and March 1999 the Sofia District Court held ten
hearings, the first five of which were adjourned because A.I. had not
been properly summoned. The court gave judgment on 19 April 1999,
awarding the applicant BGL 75,000 compensation for pecuniary and
BGL 266,000 for non pecuniary damage. It found that there
was no valid insurance contract between the insurance company and
A.I. and for this reason held that the compensation was due solely by
the latter.
- On
29 April 1999 the applicant appealed, arguing that she had suffered
more serious injuries and that the compensation awarded was
inadequate. A.I. also appealed. As the Sofia District Court, through
which the appeals had been filed, did not process them until October
2000, the applicant made a complaint about delays. As a result, on 10
November 2000 the chairman of the Sofia City Court instructed the
district judge in charge of the case to send it without delay to the
Sofia City Court for examination.
- After
holding a hearing on 7 June 2001, in a judgment of 11 July 2001 the
Sofia City Court partly reversed the lower court's judgment and found
that A.I.'s insurance company was liable. The court also increased
the award in respect of non pecuniary damage to 350 Bulgarian
levs (BGN). However, the applicant's contention that her skull had
been fractured in the car accident and that this had resulted in
permanent injuries was considered unsubstantiated, as no evidence in
support of that had been submitted.
- On
10 August 2001 the applicant appealed on points of law. In November
2002, while the proceedings were pending, the 1952 Code of Civil
Procedure was amended and provided that henceforth the Supreme Court
of Cassation had jurisdiction to hear only cases in which the amount
in issue was higher than BGN 5,000. The amendment entered into force
with immediate effect and was applicable to pending cases.
Accordingly, in a decision of 25 November 2002 the Supreme Court of
Cassation terminated the proceedings on the ground that the amount of
the compensation claimed was below the minimum for which that court
had jurisdiction to hear cases. The applicant was informed of the
decision in a letter of 9 December 2002. She did not appeal against
it.
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY REMARK
- The
Court notes that the applicant died on 3 March 2006, while the case
was pending before the Court, and that two of her heirs, Ms Nevenka
Nikolaeva Stefanova Istatkova and Ms Anka Nikolaeva
Stefanova-Petrova, expressed the wish to pursue the application on
her behalf. It has not been disputed that they are entitled to do so
and the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, among many other
authorities, Horváthová v. Slovakia,
no. 74456/01, §§ 26 and 27, 17 May 2005).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that
her civil action had not been examined within a “reasonable
time”. Article 6 § 1 provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Court considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention or
inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 4 June 1997 and ended
on 9 December 2002. It thus lasted a little over five and a half
years for three levels of jurisdiction.
- According
to the Court's settled case law, the reasonableness of the
length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the
circumstances of the case and with reference to the following
criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant
and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant
in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Rachevi v.
Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 73, 23 September 2004).
- The
parties presented various arguments as to the way in which these
criteria should apply in the instant case.
- The
Court does not consider that the case presented any particular
complexity, as A.I.'s responsibility for the accident had already
been established in prior proceedings (see Rachevi, cited
above, § 76). The only truly contentious issues were the extent
of the damage suffered by the applicant and whether A.I. had been
validly insured. It does not seem that the applicant was responsible
for any major delays, which were mainly the result of the
authorities' failure to summon A.I. properly for five hearings,
process the appeals against the Sofia District Court's judgment in a
timely fashion and examine the applicant's appeal on points of law
for more than one year and three months. Seen against the backdrop of
what was at stake for the applicant – payment of compensation
for serious injures sustained in a road accident (ibid., § 91,
with further references) – these delays and the global duration
of the proceedings cannot be seen as reasonable.
- There
has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
III. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that
the damages which she had been awarded had been too low. She further
complained under the same provision that following the amendment to
the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure her case had ceased to be reviewable
by the Supreme Court of Cassation. Finally, she complained under
Article 13 of the Convention that domestic law did not provide an
effective mechanism for the vindication of her civil rights.
- In
the light of all the 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 this part of the application is manifestly ill founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and
4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant's heirs each claimed BGN 550, plus interest as from 31 July
1996, as compensation in respect of the non pecuniary damage
suffered as a result of the alleged unfairness of the proceedings.
They also claimed BGN 500 each as compensation in respect of the
non pecuniary damage suffered on account of the excessive length
of the proceedings.
- The
Government did not comment on the claims.
- The
Court observes that in the present case an award of just satisfaction
can only be based on the violation of the reasonable time
requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Ruling in
equity, as required under Article 41 of the Convention, it awards
each of the applicant's two heirs, who continued the proceedings in
her stead, the full amount claimed, which, converted into euros
(EUR), comes to EUR 256. To those amounts should be added any tax
that may be chargeable to the applicant or her heirs.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant's heirs sought the reimbursement of BGN 900 for costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
- The
Government did not comment on the claims.
- According
to the Court's case law, applicants are entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings
and considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 400, plus any tax
that may be chargeable to the applicant's heirs, for the proceedings
before the Court.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on
which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 §
2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into
Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) to
Ms Nevenka Nikolaeva Stefanova Istatkova, EUR 256 (two hundred
fifty six euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) to
Ms Anka Nikolaeva Stefanova Petrova, EUR 256 (two hundred
fifty six euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) jointly
to Ms Nevenka Nikolaeva Stefanova Istatkova and Ms Anka
Nikolaeva Stefanova Petrova, EUR 400 (four hundred euros), plus
any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and
expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above mentioned three months until
settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a
rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
