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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Dimitar Ivanov FRENKOV v Bulgaria - 7100/07 [2012] ECHR 575 (20 March 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/575.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 575 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Dimitar Ivanov FRENKOV against Bulgaria
and 8
other applications
(see table appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 March 2012 as a Committee composed of:
George
Nicolaou, President,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
Vincent
A. De Gaetano, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the applications listed in the table below,
Having regard to the pilot judgment in the case of Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, § 135, 10 May 2011,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants are Bulgarian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the table below. Some of the applicants were legally represented. The legal representatives involved were Mr M. Ekimdjiev, Ms G. Chernicherska, Mr D. Mitkov, Ms S. Vasileva, Ms S. Lyubenova Neykova, Ms V. Koeva, Mr Y. Georgiev, Ms Katina Boncheva and Mr V. Stoyanov. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The essential information as to the length of the proceedings in which the applicants were involved is indicated in the attached table.
On 8 August 2011 the President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of civil proceedings and in some cases the complaints under Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of effective remedies in relation to the length and the impact of the length of the proceedings on property rights.
THE LAW
The Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background.
On various dates (see table below) the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Bulgaria in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications against an undertaking by the Government to pay them ex gratia sums, which would cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The sums would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. This payment would constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlements reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlements are based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Fatoş Aracı George Nicolaou
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX