FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF DIMITAR IVANOV v. BULGARIA
 
(Application no. 19418/07)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
14 February 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dimitar Ivanov v. Bulgaria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a committee composed of:
 Päivi Hirvelä, President,
 Ledi Bianku,
 Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 January 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 19418/07) 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 a Bulgarian national, Mr Dimitar Vasilev Ivanov (“the applicant”), on 5 April 2007. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Stoyanov, a lawyer practising in Pazardzhik. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs M. Dimova and Mr V. Obretenov, of the Ministry of Justice. 3. The applicant alleged that the criminal charges against him had not been determined within a reasonable time, that he had not had effective remedies in that respect, and that the prohibition on his leaving Bulgaria had been unlawful and unjustified. 4. On 20 September 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. 5. The application was later transferred to the Fourth Section of the Court, following the re-composition of Court’s sections on 1 February 2011. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
6. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Dinkata. A. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
7. On 6 October 1994 the applicant confessed before the police to committing robbery together with two other individuals earlier that day. The stolen goods were confiscated by the police that same day. 8. On 4 October 1995 criminal proceedings against the applicant were formally instituted. 9. It appears that thereafter the case remained dormant until 5 October 2004 when witnesses were questioned. 10. In the period between 2001 and 2004 the applicant left the country on a number of occasions and returned each time. 11. On 6 October 2004 the applicant, who was abroad at the time, was appointed an ex officio lawyer and was charged in absentia with robbery. 12. The first hearing of the case was held on 14 January 2005 in the applicant’s presence. 13. In a judgment of 12 April 2006 the Pazardzhik District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for three years. 14. Following an appeal lodged by the applicant’s co-defendant, in a final judgment of 12 October 2006 the Pazardzhik Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment including the applicant’s conviction and sentence. B. Prohibition to leave the country
15. On 9 March 2007 the Pazardzhik Regional Police Directorate ordered the imposition of a ban on the applicant leaving the country on account of his conviction and pending his rehabilitation. It relied on section 76(2) of the 1998 Bulgarian Identity Papers Act. 16. The applicant contested the order arguing that he was unable to provide for his family in Bulgaria and that he had employment opportunities in Serbia. 17. On 25 May 2007 the applicant was refused passage by a border police official while attempting to leave Bulgaria in spite of the imposed prohibition. 18. By a final judgment of 10 October 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the prohibition. The court reasoned that it was within the administrative authority’s discretion to impose such a ban and that its assessment was not subject to judicial control. At the same time, it held that the law had been complied with in that such restriction could be imposed in cases where a conviction was in place and prior to the rehabilitation of the convicted person and that other factors, such as the impossibility to find employment in Bulgaria, were irrelevant. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
19. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning travel bans on convicted individuals pending their rehabilitation is set out in the Court’s judgment in the case of Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, §§ 25-29, 10 February 2011. 20. The relevant statutory provisions concerning the rehabilitation of persons convicted with a suspended sentence are summarised in the above‑cited Nalbantski judgment, § 30. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
21. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that he did not have effective remedies in that respect as provided by Article 13. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 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 ...”
Article 13 of the Convention provides:
“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.”
22. The Government left it to the Court to decide whether, in the particular case, there had been a breach of the Convention. 23. The period to be taken into consideration began on 6 October 1994 when the applicant confessed to committing the offence in a statement before the police (see Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria, nos. 48059/06 and 2708/09, § 74, 10 May 2011, with further reference). It ended on 12 October 2006, the day of delivery of the Regional Court’s final judgment. The proceedings thus lasted twelve years for a preliminary investigation and two levels of jurisdiction. A. Admissibility
24. The Court finds that the complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
1. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1
25. The Court reiterates that 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 (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). 26. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, among many other authorities, Dimitrov and Hamanov, cited above; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011). 27. 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 case was not particularly complex and the authorities were responsible for a large part of the delay as a result of their being inactive for a period of nine years when the case remained dormant at the pre-trial stage (see paragraph 9 above). 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. 28. 2. Alleged violation of Article 13
29. The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order (see Dimitrov and Hamanov, cited above, § 90). 30. It observes further that it recently adopted a pilot judgment in the case Dimitrov and Hamanov, cited above where it examined the availability of domestic remedies in respect of the length of criminal proceedings in Bulgaria (ibid., §§ 86-99) and concluded that Article 13 had been violated in that respect. The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
31.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 2
Outcome: violation