CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 septembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 9351/03 by Valentin Petrov FILIPOV against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25   September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger ,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Valentin Petrov Filipov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Dobrich. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The criminal proceedings On 14 March 1997 the Dobrich Regional Court convicted the applicant for two aggravated murders (Article 116 of the Criminal Code) committed on 24 October 1990 and 14 July 1992. It imposed a sentence of life imprisonment as it considered this to be more lenient than the death penalty. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the judgment. The applicant’s conviction was upheld on 23 October 1998 by the Varna Court of Appeals. In the proceedings the applicant had been assisted by a court-appointed lawyer. On 4 November 1998 the applicant filed a cassation appeal. In a final judgment of 4 May 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the conviction of the applicant in its entirety. The applicant had once again been assisted by a court-appointed lawyer. 2.     The conditions of detention in Varna prison The applicant maintained that in the course of the criminal proceedings he had been detained from 25 October 1990 to 11 November 1991 and then from 23 July 1992 onwards at the Varna prison in conditions which were inadequate. Upon his submissions (a) he was held in a cell measuring two by four meters with up to four other detainees; (b) most of the other detainees smoked while he did not; (c) hygiene was inadequate; (e) access to the toilet was possible only three times a day while during the rest of the day detainees had to use a bucket; (f) he could only bathe once a fortnight with cold water; (g) no special recreational activities were available; and (h) his contacts with the outside world were restricted. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment while being detained at the Varna prison. 2.     The applicant complained, relying on Articles 6, 13 and 17 of the Convention, of the alleged lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he claimed that he was not given the opportunity to adequately defend himself, that his lawyer tricked him, that from the outset the authorities and the courts treated him as being guilty, that the prosecuting authorities forced witnesses to give false or inaccurate statements and that he was not allowed to participate in the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 7 of the Convention that the domestic courts imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on him, which was not provided for under national law at the time the offences, for which he had been found guilty, had been committed. THE LAW A.     Complaint regarding the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions of detention The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result of having been detained at the Varna prison in allegedly inadequate conditions of detention which provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In so far as the above complaint concerns the period after 7 September 1992, the date of the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Bulgaria, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. B.     The remainder of the applicant’s complaints The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints as submitted by him. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were 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 this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the conditions of detention at the Varna prison; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President