ECtHR issues two new decisions against Bulgaria

On 8 June 2006 the European Court of HUman Rights in Strasbourg announced its judgments on three cases concerning Bulgaria. In two of the cases, the Court found violations of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Bonev v. Bulgaria
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 (fairness) and 3 (d)

The applicant, Stefan Ganev Bonev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Bourgas (Bulgaria).

Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for having severely beaten up an acquaintance of his in September 1998, who subsequently died. The applicant was accused of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm causing accidental death. The applicant admitted to having beaten the victim with a wooden board.

Investigators took the testimonies of various people including Mr L.A. (who died shortly after being interviewed) and Mr Z.T. who were eyewitnesses to the event. On 2 February 1999 the Bourgas Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment, the maximum possible penalty being 15 years’ imprisonment. The court relied heavily on the statements of the two eyewitnesses who were not present at the trial. The applicant appealed without success. His request for Mr Z.T. to be called as a witness was turned down, as the courts held that the latter was a vagrant and did not have a fixed address.
The applicant complained that his trial had been unfair in that he had been unable to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements had served as the main basis for his conviction. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).

The Court observed that although Mr Z.T.’s and Mr L.A.’s statements were decisive for the applicant’s conviction he was never given the opportunity to cross-examine either witness at any stage in the proceedings. In particular, it noted that Mr Z.T. was never heard because the courts held that it was impossible to subpoena him as he did not have a fixed address. The Court found that finding that witness should not have constituted an insuperable obstacle, bearing in mind that the applicant stood accused of a very serious offence and risked being sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

V.M. v. Bulgaria
No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

The applicant is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Sofia.
In 1994 the applicant entered into a service agreement, undertaking to provide legal assistance to a young woman, X., in connection with legal proceedings that she had brought with the aim of recovering a number of properties. It was agreed that he would be paid 10% of the proceeds from the recovered properties.

When X failed to make the payments to which the applicant believed he was entitled, he sought a court order for the specific performance of his agreement with X, first from Sofia City Court and then from Sofia District Court. On both occasions he applied to the court to be exempted from court fees and procedural expenses because he could not afford to pay them. His requests for exemption were denied by the Bulgarian courts and the applicant thus decided not to pursue his actions.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that there had been a violation of his right of access to a court on account of his inability to pay the high court fees charged to a claimant in civil proceedings.

The Court noted at the outset that the amount of the fees due in the applicant’s case had not been particularly excessive. It moreover noted that the applicant had had access to a procedure by which he could seek exemption from court fees and that, in denying his requests for exemption, the Bulgarian courts had taken into account his personal situation, noting especially his potential financial capacity and the fact that he was the owner of his house. It had particularly been apparent from the very nature of the applicant’s intended action, seeking payment under a professional agreement for the provision of legal services, that he had been in a position to receive income from his activities.

In the circumstances of the case, the Court did not consider that the obligation for the applicant to pay court fees in order to bring his action for payment had constituted a disproportionate restriction impairing the essence of his right of access to a court. It accordingly held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Length-of-proceedings cases

Hadjibakalov v. Bulgaria (no. 58497/00) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13

In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They further relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of their complaints about the excessive length of proceedings.