HRISTOV proti Bulharsku

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 13684/03
Hristo Dimitrov HRISTOV and Others against Bulgaria
and 27 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 July 2012 as a Committee composed of:

David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the appended applications,

Having regard to the judgment of Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, 25 October 2011,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Bulgarian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the appended list. Some of the applicants were legally represented. The legal representatives involved in the proceedings were Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.

The applicants are all pensioners. Since 1999 their pensions have been capped pursuant to the provisions of the relevant legislation.

On 10 November 2009, the Chamber to which the cases had been allocated decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Bulgaria but that the applications should be adjourned pending the examination of the case of Valkov and Others, cited above.

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the judgment Valkov and Others, cited above, §§ 22-64.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants expressly or in substance complained that the cap on their retirement pensions was in breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

With the exception of the applicants in application nos. 13684/03 and 21119/04, the applicants also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that the cap on their retirement pensions discriminated against them.

Some of the applicants also invoked Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and complained that they could not challenge the constitutionality of the relevant legislative provisions.

The applicant in application no. 13684/03 also complained about the outcome and alleged unfairness of the 2000-2003 labour proceedings which he had initiated. He further complained that the State did not pay for his medical treatment in another country.

The applicant in application no. 21119/04 also complained about the outcome and length of administrative proceedings concerning his request for the certification of his labour-related illness.

THE LAW

1. Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decides that the applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

2. In Valkov and Others, cited above, §§ 88-101 and §§ 114-117 the Court found that the cap on pensions, provided for under Bulgarian law, did not give rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. As to the complaints that the applicants could not challenge the constitutionality of the relevant legislative provisions, the Court found that those complaints were incompatible ratione materiae (see Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 2033/04 et al., 10 November 2009).

The Court observes that the applicants’ complaints in the present cases in relation to the cap on pensions are identical to those that were rejected in the above cited case. With reference to the detailed reasoning set out in Valkov and Others, the Court finds that the above complaints are manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

3. Some of the applicants have made other complaints. In the light of all of 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 these complaints should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Fatoş Aracı David Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy Registrar President

Appendix