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 RANGELOV AND STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
(Application
no. 23240/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1
April 2010
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 Rangelov and Stefanov 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 9 March 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 23240/04) against the
Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court
on 18 June 2004 under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by two Bulgarian nationals, Mr Stefan
Dimitrov Rangelov and Mr Rangel Vulchev Stefanov, who were born in
1974 and 1972 respectively and live in Plovdiv.
- The
applicants were represented before the Court by Ms S. Stefanova and
Mr A. Atanasov, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Ms S. Atanasova, of the
Ministry of Justice.
- On
27 May 2008 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).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- On
8 and 10 November 1993 three criminal proceedings were opened against
unknown perpetrators for three thefts from motor vehicles.
- On
10 November 1993 the first applicant, Mr S. Rangelov, was questioned
and confessed to having participated in the perpetration of the
offences. On the next day, the 11th, the second applicant, Mr R.
Stefanov, was also questioned and confessed. Two other individuals
were also questioned.
- On
15 November 1993 the investigating authorities proposed to transfer
the three investigation files to the prosecution authorities as it
had been established that the applicants, given their confessions,
and their two accomplices had been the perpetrators.
- There
was no apparent development until 24 April 1996 when the
investigating authorities proposed to the prosecution authorities to
stay the first criminal proceedings. There was another period of
inactivity until 23 April 1999 when the investigating
authorities transformed the third criminal proceedings into a police
investigation (дознание).
- Subsequently
between 7 May 2001 and 14 May 2002 the second criminal proceedings
were stayed, then resumed and joined to the third criminal
proceedings; the first proceedings were also resumed and joined to
the third proceedings; and two expert reports were commissioned.
- Between
22 October and 12 December 2002 the two applicants and their
accomplices were charged with the three thefts. On 13 and 14 March
2003 the charges were amended.
- On
10 May 2003 an indictment was filed against the applicants and their
co-accused in respect of the three thefts.
- At
a hearing held on 19 December 2003 the Plovdiv District Court
approved a plea bargain agreement and discontinued the proceedings.
The applicants were each sentenced to one year's imprisonment,
suspended.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government did not comment.
- The
Court finds that the period to be taken into consideration began on
10 November 1993 in respect of the first applicant, Mr S.
Rangelov, and on the 11th in respect of the second, Mr R. Stefanov
(see Myashev v. Bulgaria, no. 43428/02,
§ 15, 8 January 2009 and Yankov and Manchev
v. Bulgaria, nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05,
§§ 17-18 and §§ 23-24, 22 October
2009). The period ended on 19 December 2003 in respect of both
applicants. It thus lasted a little over ten years for one level of
jurisdiction.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
- The
Court notes that it has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the
present case (see, most recently, Myashev, §§
14-18 and Yankov and Manchev, §§ 17-26,
both cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In
particular, the major source of delay in the present case was the
lack of sufficient activity between 1993 and 2001 for which the
applicants do not appear to have been responsible and which the
Government failed to explain. Thus, having regard to its case-law on
the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length
of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants further complained of the lack of an effective remedy in
respect the excessive length of the proceedings against them. They
relied on Article 13 of the Convention.
- The
Government did not comment.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
- The
Court notes that it has frequently found violations of Article 13 of
the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the
present case (see, with further references, Myashev, §
22 and Yankov and Manchev, §§ 32-33,
both cited above). It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion
in the present case.
- There
has therefore been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
III. 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
applicants claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non pecuniary
damage sustained as a result of the unreasonable length of the
proceedings against them. They additionally claimed EUR 10,000 for
the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the lack of
effective remedies against the excessive length of the proceedings.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- The
Court considers that the applicants must have suffered certain
non pecuniary damage as a result of the excessive length of the
proceedings against them and the lack of effective remedies in this
respect. Taking into account the particular circumstances and the
awards made in similar cases, and ruling on an equitable basis, as
required under Article 41, the Court awards each of the applicants
EUR 6,200, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants sought the reimbursement of EUR 3,410 incurred in lawyers'
fees for the proceedings before the Court, and of EUR 155 for other
expenses. They presented a legal-services agreement and a timesheet
approved by the applicants and their representatives. The applicants
asked that any award under this head be made directly payable to
their lawyers, Ms S. Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov.
- The
Government contested these 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 considers it
reasonable to award them EUR 1,000, plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicants. This sum is to be paid into the bank
account of their legal representatives, Ms S. Stefanova and
Mr A. Atanasov.
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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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
each applicant, EUR 6,200 (six thousand two hundred euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non pecuniary damage;
(ii) jointly
to both applicants, EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses, to be
paid into the bank account of their legal representatives, Ms S.
Stefanova and Mr A. Atanasov;
(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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 April 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
