CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 16 janvier 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                        Application No. 21915/93                             Andrei Lukanov                                 against                                Bulgaria                        REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 16 January 1996)                            TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 12-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 17-60) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 17-39). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3        B.    Relevant domestic law           (paras. 40-60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7     III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 61-94) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        A.    Complaints declared admissible           (para. 61). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        B.    Points at issue           (para. 62). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11        C.    As regards Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention           (paras. 63-83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11             CONCLUSION           (para. 84). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14        D.    As regards Article 18 of the Convention           (paras. 85-90). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14             CONCLUSION           (para. 91). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15        E.    Recapitulation           (paras. 92-93). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15     APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE           ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . . 16     I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The applicant, a Bulgarian citizen born in 1938, was first a Minister of the Bulgarian Government, then Deputy Prime Minister, and from 1989 until 1990 Prime Minister of Bulgaria.   He is currently a Member of Parliament.   3.    The application is directed against Bulgaria.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs. G. Beleva, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.    The case concerns the applicant's detention on remand on charges of misappropriation of funds and transfer of monies to Third World Countries, allegedly committed by the applicant as a Deputy Prime Minister.   The applicant invokes Articles 5 para. 1(c) and 18 of the Convention.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 1 September 1992 and registered on 25 May 1993.   6.    On 21 October 1993 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on admissibility and merits.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 5 April 1994 after the extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.   The applicant's observations in reply were dated 25 May 1994.   The Government submitted additional observations on 18 July 1994, which were sent to the applicant for information.   8.    On 30 August 1994 the Commission decided to invite the parties to an oral hearing.   The hearing took place on 12 January 1995.   The Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs. G. Beleva, and by Mrs. J. Miteva.   The applicant, who was also present, was represented by Mrs. I. Lulcheva, a lawyer practising in Sofia.   9.    On 12 January 1995 the Commission declared the applicant's complaints under Articles 5 para. 1 and 18 of the Convention admissible.   It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   10.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 24 January 1995 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.   The applicant submitted further observations by letter of 7 March 1995, which were sent to the Government for information.   11.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.     C.    The present Report   12.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:             MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President                H. DANELIUS                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   F. MARTINEZ                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                E. KONSTANTINOV                D. SVÁBY   13.   The text of this Report was adopted on 16 January 1996 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:        (i)   to establish the facts, and        (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   15.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   16.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   17.   On 1 July 1992 the Prosecutor General of Bulgaria requested the Bulgarian National Assembly to permit the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having contravened Sections 203 and 219 para. 3 of the Bulgarian Penal Code.   He was in particular accused of having participated between 1986 and 1990 as a Deputy Prime Minister in 27 decisions which granted assistance and credits of altogether 34.594.500 USD and 27.072.000 convertible Bulgarian Leva to less developed countries such as Nicaragua, Cuba, Laos and others.   The request continued:   <Translation>             "The decisions ... have led to extremely severe results for      the country's economy in respect of its potential, resources and      export capacity, and have objectively led to an incapacity to      repay its foreign debt.   It should be emphasised that due to such      decisions harmful to the country, and other illegal acts of party      and government leaders, during this period our foreign debt which      in 1986 amounted to 4.119.700 USD, increased to 10.656.900.000      USD in 1989 ...             The described situation corresponds to the qualification of      the crime of the 'benefit of using one's position' in respect of      particularly big amounts, which qualifies as a specifically      severe case, falling under Section 203 and Section 219 para. 3      of the Penal Code.             The crimes mentioned are 'serious' in the context of      Section 93 para. 7 of the same Code."   18.   On 7 July 1992 the National Assembly decided to suspend the applicant's parliamentary immunity and to permit the institution of criminal proceedings against him, as well as his arrest and detention on remand.   19.   On 9 July 1992 Public Prosecutor D., of the Investigation Department of the General Prosecution, ordered the applicant's prosecution and his detention on remand.   The applicant was charged under Article 203 of the Penal Code with having misappropriated, in complicity with the Chairman and the other Vice-Chairmen of the then Council of Ministers, the monies granted as assistance and credits to less developed countries (see above para. 17).   He was also charged with a crime under Article 282 para. 3 of the Code for having breached his official duties as Vice-Chairman of the Council of Ministers in order to facilitate the misappropriation of funds.   20.   As to the reasons for imposing detention on remand, the order relied on the extent of public exposure of the committed crime, the personality of the performer and the need to secure the applicant's appearance before court, as well as on Sections 50, 177, 180, 196 para. 2 and 207, and Sections 146 to 148 and 152 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   21.   Still on 9 July 1992 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on the premises of the National Investigation Service in Sofia.   22.   On 9 July 1992 the applicant's lawyer filed an appeal with the Bulgarian Supreme Court, requesting the applicant's release from detention.   The appeal stated that, contrary to Section 148 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the warrant of arrest mentioned no grounds for the applicant's arrest.   The grounds given could in fact serve for any arrest.   Furthermore, according to Section 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant's detention could not be justified on the mere ground that he risked a sentence of more than ten years' imprisonment, since para. 2 of Section 152 required as grounds for detention a danger of absconding or of committing a further crime. The appeal also invoked Section 31 para. 4 of the Bulgarian Constitution.   23.   On 13 July 1992 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.   The Court decided in the presence of the Public Prosecutor, but in the absence of the applicant and his lawyers.   The decision stated:   <Translation>             "Under Section 152 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal      Procedure detention is ordered if a sentence of ten or more years      of imprisonment or the death penalty is envisaged for the crime.      The offences in Section 203 para. 1 of the Penal Code envisage      such a penalty.             (This provision) contains two cumulative prerequisites -      misappropriation must have occurred on a large scale and must      have been particularly serious.             The particularly large scale derives from the nominal value      of the public property involved.   The seriousness of the case      results from the fact that the misappropriation was done in      complicity with other persons and from the extremely high degree      of public danger of the act and the subject (Section 93 para. 8      of the Penal Code).   The argument that the hypothesis of Section      152 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure exists in this case      is groundless.             At the time of the accusation the applicant was a member of      the National Assembly.   He preserves this quality by virtue of      Section 72 of the Constitution of Bulgaria up to the moment when      judicial facts occurred by virtue of which the powers of a member      of the National Assembly may be suspended.   In his capacity as      member of the National Assembly the applicant represents the      people as a whole.   It is precisely in this capacity that the      possibility of Section 152 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal      Procedure applying to his case becomes more likely than in the      case of an applicant who does not have the status of a member of      the National Assembly.             Furthermore, the applicant undertook a judicial appeal      against the administrative act by which his diplomatic passport      ... was withdrawn ... These actions of his cast well-founded      doubts as to whether future actions will not be undertaken by him      in the context of Section 152 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal      Procedure.             According to Section 70 of the Constitution of the Republic      of Bulgaria '... the members of the National Assembly cannot be      detained and no legal prosecution can be initiated against them      except for serious crimes and with the permission of the National      Assembly ...'.   The logical and systematic interpretation of the      aforesaid provision imposes the conclusion that the measure of      restriction, 'detention', in the context of the Penal Code is      determined by the high level of public danger of the act and by      the special status of the person who has committed it ..., a      member of the National Assembly.             For this reason the legislator envisaged a qualified      measure of restriction, detention, in similar cases.   The      Prosecutor's Office is competent to impose this measure."   24.   On 11 August 1992 the applicant published an article in the Bulgarian newspaper "Douma" entitled "Who will pay?".   25.   As a result, by order of 12 August 1992, Public Prosecutor D. prohibited the applicant from speaking alone with his lawyers. Reference was made in particular to Section 75 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   The order, which stated that it could be contested by means of appeal, explained:   <Translation>             "The daily papers and in particular the 'Douma' newspaper      after the date of detention of the accused ... published articles      by him.   Such an article was also published in      No. 191/August 8 1992 of the said newspaper.   Analysis has shown      that these publications are of a political nature.   One of the      aims of these publications is to demonstrate that, irrespective      of his detention, the [applicant] continues to take an active      part in the public and political life of the country.   This is      inadmissible in view of the measure of coercion applied to him.      Thus, public order is being infringed, mistrust of the judiciary      is being introduced, and the constitutional principle that rights      should not be abused has been violated.   According to Section 10      para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all citizens      participating in criminal proceedings are equal before the law      and in this connection no privileges based on public status are      admitted.   Neither periodicals nor daily newspapers have      published or will publish materials written by persons in      custody.   With a view to the nature of this procedural measure      of coercion, regulatory control has been imposed by the competent      bodies on the correspondence of those remanded in custody.      According to the law, it is inadmissible that the [applicant]      alone should enjoy such a privilege.             There are reasons to suspect that ... the [applicant] is      preparing written material which he transmits to his defence      lawyers ... and which [is] then conveyed to the editorial boards      of newspapers and other organisations.   This aims at introducing      public unrest and mistrust of the Bulgarian Judiciary.   Thus, it      is necessary, provisionally, during the stay of the [applicant]      at the ... Higher Medical Academy, to restrict his right to meet      his defence lawyers without anyone else being present, as      provided for under Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."   26.   On 1 September 1992 Public Prosecutor D. issued a further order according to which the applicant, who was now in the Sofia Penitentiary Hospital, was not permitted to "see other persons, including ... members of the National Assembly ... without permission in writing given under [the Prosecutor's] signature.   [The applicant] is not to be given a typewriter ...".   27.   Alleging a change in circumstances concerning his state of health, on 4 September 1992 the applicant filed a request with the Prosecutor General to be released from detention.   On 5 September 1992 the applicant's lawyer filed a complaint with the Supreme Court against the tacit refusal of the Prosecutor General to grant the request of 4 September 1992.   A public hearing on the applicant's appeal was requested with reference to Article 6 of the Convention.   28.   On 17 September 1992 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal as the law did not provide for judicial control over the acts of the prosecution during the preliminary investigation of a criminal case. The sole exception to this rule was the possibility to appeal against an order for the imposition of detention.   Besides, the Supreme Court had already dealt with the applicant's appeal against his detention, and under the law the imposition of detention could only be contested once.   A new appeal was only possible where a detained person had been released and then again detained.   In all other cases a detained person could always request the investigating authorities to replace detention on remand by another measure where there had been a change of circumstances.   However, this was within the competence of the investigating authorities, whose decisions could be contested before the prosecution, albeit not before the court.   29.   On 20 October 1992 the applicant's lawyer requested Public Prosecutor D. to release the applicant.   It transpires from the subsequent order of Public Prosecutor D. of 2 November 1992 that the Prosecutor General dismissed this request on 22 October 1992.   30.   On 28 October 1992 Public Prosecutor D. met the applicant and his lawyer at the Military Hospital in Sofia.   According to the minutes established, the lawyer requested D., who was conducting the investigation, to decide on the applicant's request for release.   The applicant himself pointed out that it was absurd to rely for his detention on the fact that he had complained about the withdrawal of his passport.   He also did not have another passport.   There was no danger of repeating the offence, as he was no longer in a position to do so.   As a result, his release was imperative.   The applicant also drew attention to the necessity of convalescence which was impossible in detention.   31.   By order of 2 November 1992 Public Prosecutor D. dismissed the applicant's request for release as the Prosecutor General had already dealt with it.   It was stated that the applicant's lawyers had been informed of the Prosecutor General's decision of 22 October 1992, and that no further appeal was possible.   The order explained that the Prosecutor General was aware of the medical reports and had refused the request as there were no new circumstances permitting the applicant's release.   32.   By letter of 9 November 1992 the applicant's lawyer requested the General Prosecution to terminate the investigations, explaining that the investigations had commenced on 8 July 1992, and that the two months of investigations envisaged by the law had expired on 8 September 1992.   After prolongation, a period of four months had expired on 8 November 1992.   According to Section 222 para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a further prolongation of two months was only possible in "exceptional" cases.   The lawyer contested the exceptional nature of the applicant's case as in the past four months the General Prosecution had not obtained new means of proof.   33.   The lawyer also contested that the accusations disclosed an offence.   Thus, the decisions of the Council of Ministers had been taken collectively within the framework of the constitutional powers and the budget voted by the National Assembly; the decisions executed State policies during the period concerned; the authority as such, and not the applicant as Deputy Prime Minister, had dealt with the means concerned and it had not been established that the applicant had committed the offence in his own or another person's interest.   34.   On 10 November 1992 the applicant's lawyer requested the Prosecutor General to release the applicant as the further prolongation breached Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention; contrary to Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention no grounds had been given for detention. The lawyer refused to comment on the allegation that, as a member of the National Assembly, the applicant was particularly dangerous.   On the other hand, insofar as it was maintained that the applicant had appealed against the refusal to apply for a passport, he had only exercised his rights under Bulgarian law.   The lawyer further invoked Articles 2 and 5 para. 4 of the Convention; under Article 6 para. 3 (b) the lawyer complained that the applicant had not been informed of the content of the accusations against him.   35.   On 11 November 1992 the Prosecutor General orally informed the applicant's lawyers that the applicant's request of 10 November 1992 had been dismissed as there were no new circumstances justifying modification of detention.   According to the Public Prosecutor's subsequent letter of 25 November 1992, a copy of this decision was transmitted on 16 November 1992 to the applicant's lawyer.   36.   On 18 November 1992 the applicant personally wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General complaining about the proceedings.   He invoked Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to which the Prosecution had to reply to requests in writing.   The applicant concluded that the criminal proceedings instituted against him had no legal basis and constituted an overt political reprisal.   37.   By letter of 20 November 1992 the applicant's lawyer asked Public Prosecutor D. about the outcome of the request of 10 November 1992. She explained that the information was important for the application filed with the European Commission of Human Rights.   38.   On 25 November 1992 Public Prosecutor D. replied that on 16 November 1992 the decision of 11 November 1992 had been transmitted to the applicant's lawyer, and that minutes concerning these occurrences had been prepared under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   39.   On 29 December 1992 the Bulgarian National Assembly reversed its decision of 7 July 1992 authorising the applicant's detention on remand.   On 30 December 1992 Prosecutor D. issued an order for the applicant's release whereupon the applicant was released.   B.    Relevant domestic law        1.    Bulgarian Constitution of July 1991.   40.   Section 5 para. 4 of the Constitution states that any international instrument which has been ratified in the constitutionally established procedure, promulgated and has come into force with respect to the Republic of Bulgaria, shall be considered part of the domestic legislation of the country.   It shall supersede any domestic legislation stipulating otherwise.   41.   Section 31 para. 4 of the Bulgarian Constitution states that the restrictions of the rights of the accused shall not exceed those necessary for the administration of justice.   42.   According to Section 70, a member of the National Assembly is immune from detention and criminal proceedings except where accused of a serious crime, in which case a decision of the National Assembly is required.        2.    Bulgarian Penal Code of April 1968, amended, as in force at the relevant time.   43.   Section 93 para. 7 of the Penal Code defines as a "serious case" a crime sanctioned by at least five years' imprisonment or capital punishment.   Para. 8 defines as an "extremely serious case" a crime the consequences of which demonstrate the particularly dangerous character of the act and its perpetrator for society.   44.   Section 201 of the Penal Code states that a civil servant who misappropriates public or private funds, objects and other valuables handed to him in his capacity as a civil servant or entrusted to him to safeguard or manage, shall be punished with imprisonment lasting up to eight years.   45.   According to Section 202 the punishment for the misappropriation of funds by a civil servant shall be between one and ten years if, in order to facilitate misappropriation, a further crime was committed, or if the offence was committed together with other persons.   46.   Section 203 para. 1 provides for a heavier penalty where a crime under Articles 201 or 202 involves particularly large amounts.   It reads as follows: "Whoever misappropriates particularly large amounts of public funds due to his position in office shall, in serious cases, be punished with imprisonment lasting between ten and thirty years."   47.   Section 219 para. 1 reads: "If a civil servant, in his administration of assets or of money in his possession or in the execution of work which he has been ordered to do, negligently brings about considerable material damage, or the destruction or dispersion of the assets, to the disadvantage of the service concerned or the national economy, he will be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or forced labour in the general interest."   According to para. 3, if the offence is committed wilfully and does not constitute another more serious offence, punishment shall be up to eight years' imprisonment.   48.   Section 282 provides:   <Translation>        "(1) A civil servant who does not comply with his professional      obligations or who commits an abuse of power with the purpose of      obtaining a material advantage for himself or for a third person      or of damaging another person, and if not insignificant material      damage could arise, shall be punished with up to five years'      imprisonment ...        (2) If the act results in considerable material damage or has      been committed by a person occupying a high administrative post,      the punishment shall be imprisonment lasting eight years ...        (3) If the above-mentioned act constitutes a particularly serious      case the punishment will last between three and ten years ...".          3.    Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure of November 1974, amended, as in force at the relevant time.   49.   Section 10 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure proclaims the equality of all persons during criminal investigations.   50.   Section 50 defines the accused as the person against whom a charge is brought according to the conditions and rules of the Code.   51.   Section 75 permits the lawyer of the accused to meet his client without other persons being present.   52.   Section 100 provides for the preparation of minutes for every act of investigation.   53.   Section 147 para. 1 states that the measures of judicial control will serve the purpose of preventing the accused from absconding, from committing a new offence, or from collusion.   According to para. 2, the measures decided upon must relate to the social danger of the offence, the evidence incriminating the accused, his state of health, his family situation, his profession, and any other information concerning his personality.   54.   According to Section 148 para. 1, every decision ordering detention on remand must mention the date and place of the decision, the authority concerned, the case, the name and date of birth of the detained person, the crime of which he is accused, and the grounds of detention.   According to para. 2, a copy thereof is transmitted to the accused.   55.   Section 152 provides, insofar as relevant:   <Translation>        "(1) Detention on remand shall be imposed if the charges concern      crimes punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more or with      capital punishment.        (2)   The measure envisaged in the previous paragraph shall not      be imposed if there is no danger of the accused evading justice      or committing another crime.        ...        (4)   The detained person may immediately file an appeal before      the court against the imposition of detention.   The Court shall      decide within a time-limit of three days by means of a decision      which is final."   56.   Section 177 provides that the Public Prosecutor may conduct the entire investigations or a part thereof.   57.   Section 180 para. 1 states that the investigating authorities conduct their work by means of decisions.   Para. 2 requires every decision to refer to the date and place when it was taken, the authority concerned and its signature, the case, the grounds, and an operative part.   58.   Section 196 para. 2 states that if the criminal matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the investigation shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor of the General Prosecution.   59.   Section 207 states that if in the course of the investigations sufficient evidence has been adduced, and there is no ground for staying the prosecution, the investigating judge will decide to commit the applicant for trial.   60.   According to Section 222 the investigations must be brought to an end within two months after they commenced.   A further prolongation of two months is possible.   In exceptional cases, the investigations may last up to six months.   If the period is prolonged after two months, the Prosecutor General will decide on the detention on remand.   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaints declared admissible   61.   The Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaints under Articles 5 para. 1 and 18 (Art. 5-1, 18) of the Convention regarding his detention on remand.   B.    Points at issue   62.   Accordingly the issues to be determined are:   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention; and   -     whether there has been a violation of Article 18 (Art. 18) in conjunction with Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.   C.    As regards Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention   63.   The applicant complains that when he was detained on remand, there was no reasonable suspicion of his having committed a crime within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) )Art. 5-2,-c) of the Convention. He further complains that no grounds were given as to the necessity of his arrest and detention in order to prevent him from committing an offence or fleeing after having done so within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1,-c) of the Convention.   The applicant also alleges that his detention was unlawful under domestic law.   64.   Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:        "1.   Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.      No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following      cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:        ...        c.    the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the      purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on      reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it      is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an      offence or fleeing after having done so; ...".   65.   The Commission recalls the Convention organs' case law according to which Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1,-c) of the Convention sets out three alternative circumstances in which detention may be effected for the purpose of bringing a person before the competent legal authority: where a person is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence, when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent a person from committing an offence or fleeing after having done so.   Also, the detention must be "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1,-c) of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R. De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 21, para. 44).   (a)   Reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence   66.   The applicant submits that, insofar as the authorities refer, in respect of the offence which he had allegedly committed, to Section 203 of the Bulgarian Penal Code, there was no claim that he misappropriated funds personally, or that he obtained a personal benefit.   Rather, the acts of which he was accused concerned collective decisions of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria over the period 1986-1989. Those decisions were taken within the constitutional powers of the Council of Ministers, and in accordance with the policies of the Bulgarian Government and the recommendations of the United Nations and their agencies.   Moreover, there has never been an accusation against him as regards specific "deals" as contended by the Government in their submissions before the Commission.   67.   The Government submit that extending aid to Third World countries is not an offence under Bulgarian law.   However, this is not the correct formulation of the grounds in respect of which charges were brought against the applicant and other persons.   Rather, the charges were that, under the cover of development assistance, monies had been transferred in different "deals" which infringed Bulgaria's economic interests.   However, the Government cannot provide details in this respect as this would affect adversely the confidentiality of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, which are still pending.   68.   The Commission recalls the Convention organs' case law according to which a "reasonable suspicion" presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed an offence.   As a rule, problems in this area arise on the level of the facts.   The question then is whether the arrest and detention were based on sufficient objective elements to justify a "reasonable suspicion" that the facts at issue had actually occurred (see Eur. Court H.R., Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, pp. 16 - 18, paras. 32 - 34;   Murray judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A, paras. 50 - 63).   69.   However, in the present case no doubts in this respect have been raised by the applicant.   He does not contest the allegation that he took part in the decisions of the Government to allocate certain funds as assistance to less developed countries.   70.   The Commission has noted that the Government also allege that the payments to Third World countries were part of improper "deals" entered into by the applicant.   However, no accusations of this nature were raised against the applicant by the prosecuting authorities at the time of his arrest and continued detention.   Furthermore, no indication thereof can be found in any of the orders, petitions, decisions or other documents which concern the investigations against the applicant and which have been submitted by the parties (see above paras. 17-38). Furthermore, the Government have not in any way substantiated these accusations in the proceedings before the Commission.   Therefore, they could not be considered as grounds on which the authorities had formed their opinion as to the existence of a "suspicion" against the applicant.   71.   The Commission considers that in addition to its factual side, the existence of "reasonable suspicion" within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1,-c) requires that the facts invoked can be reasonably considered as falling under one of the sections describing criminal behaviour in the Penal Code.   Thus, there could clearly not be a "reasonable suspicion" if the acts or facts invoked against a detained person did not constitute a crime at the time when they occurred.   72.   In the present case, in the Prosecutor General's request to the National Assembly of 1 July 1992, the offences invoked against the applicant were those under Sections 203 and 219 para. 3 of the Bulgarian Penal Code (see above para. 17).   These provisions concern, respectively, the misappropriation of funds and the wilful causing, by a civil servant in his administration of assets, of a material damage.     73.   The Commission notes that the applicant was charged with offences under Sections 203 and 282 para. 3 of the Code, namely with misappropriation of funds and also with breach of his official duties with the purpose of obtaining a material advantage or of causing damage to others.   The latter crime was allegedly committed in order to facilitate the misappropriation of funds, which was apparently the main charge against the applicant and has been the ground for his detention (see above para. 19).   Misappropriation of funds was the sole offence invoked in the Supreme Court's decision of 13 July 1992 confirming the applicant's detention (see above para. 23).   74.   However, the facts indicated as grounds of the accusations against the applicant, for example in the Prosecutor General's request to the National Assembly of 1 July 1992 and in the order for the applicant's arrest of 9 July 1992 (see above paras. 17 and 19), concerned exclusively his participation, as Deputy Prime Minister, in decisions for the transfer of monies to Third World countries.   It does not transpire from these documents that the applicant was accused of having used any of those monies for his own benefit or to the advantage of others.   Moreover, the decisions were taken collectively, by the Bulgarian Government, and were therefore a reflection of its policy   (see the Prosecutor General's request to the National Assembly of 1 July 1992, above para. 17).   75.   Finally, the Commission notes that even the Government expressly admit that extending aid to Third World countries is not an offence under Bulgarian law (see above para. 67).   76.   It follows from the above considerations that the facts invoked against the applicant at the time of his arrest and during his continued detention could not, in the eyes of an objective observer, be construed as amounting to misappropriation of funds, and to a breach of duties committed with the purpose of facilitating the offence of misappropriation of funds.   77.   As a result, the Commission finds that, when the applicant was detained on remand, there was   no "reasonable suspicion of [his] having committed an offence" within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1,-c) of the Convention.   (b)   Reasonable necessity to prevent commission of an offence or fleeing after commission of an offence   78.   The Commission has next examined whether the applicant's detention was necessary in order to prevent him committing an offence or fleeing after having done so.   79.   The Commission notes that there has never been a contention on the part of the Bulgarian authorities that the applicant's detention was necessary in order to prevent his committing an offence.   80.   It is true that when examining the applicant's appeal against his detention, the Supreme Court in its decision of 13 July 1992 referred to issues concerning the applicant's diplomatic passport, thus implying that there was a danger of absconding (see above para. 23).   However, in the Commission's opinion, the applicant's detention could not be justified by an alleged danger of "fleeing after having [committed an offence]", when he could not be reasonably suspected of having committed an offence (see above, para. 77).   81.   It follows that the applicant's detention could not be reasonably justified under the grounds invoked by the Government and provided for in Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1,-c) of the Convention.   (c)   Lawfulness of the applicant's detention   82.   According to the Convention organs' case-law "lawfulness" of detention presupposes conformity with domestic law in the first place and also, as confirmed by Article 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention, conformity with the purposes of the restrictions permitted by Article 5 para. 1, (Art. 5-1) as well as no arbitrariness. (Eur. Court H.R., Ashingdane judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 21, para. 44; Bozano judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, p. 25, para. 58).   The Commission notes that the applicant has raised, inter alia, issues concerning the lawfulness of the detention order in view of the absence of sufficient grounds therein and also issues of time- limits for detention on remand under Bulgarian law (see above paras. 32, 33 and 63).   83.   However, in view of its finding above (para. 81), the Commission does not consider it necessary to decide whether the applicant's detention was "lawful" under domestic law within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1(c) (Art. 5-1,-c) of the Convention.        CONCLUSION   84.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.   D.    As regards Article 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention   85.   Article 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention provides:        "The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said      rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other      than those for which they have been prescribed."   86.   The applicant submits that the purpose of his detention was to prevent him from actively and freely expressing his political views as a member of the National Assembly and from participating in political life.   Thus, his arrest did not correspond to the grounds listed under Bulgarian law.   Also, during detention he was prohibited from writing articles on political issues even thoug