CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 mai 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; 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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C494981 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s194D2FA4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7A59D993 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB4145D37 { width:34.69pt; display:inline-block } .s38C76525 { width:172.98pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sC0ADED72 { width:219.66pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF ALEXOV v. BULGARIA     (Application no. 54578/00)       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG     22 May 2008       FINAL     22/08/2008     This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Alexov v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Snejana Botoucharova,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 29 April 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 54578/00) 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   Dragomir   Dimitrov Alexov (“the applicant”) who was born in 1966 and lives in Plovdiv, on 21 October 1999. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr   V. Stoyanov, a lawyer practising in Pazardzhik. 3.     The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kotzeva, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The applicant alleged, in particular, (a) that he had been detained in inadequate conditions at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility, the Pazardzhik Prison and the Montana Regional Investigation Service detention facility and that he had no effective remedy in respect thereof, (b) that the authorities had unlawfully searched his apartment on 26 August 1999 and that he had no effective remedy thereof and (c) that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful, of excessive length and unjustified, his appeals had not been examined speedily and that he lacked an enforceable right to seek compensation for being a victim of an arrest or detention in breach of the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention. 5.     By a decision of 22 May 2006 the Court declared the application partly admissible. 6.     The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     The Pazardzhik criminal proceedings 1.     The criminal proceedings 7.     On 17 August 1999 a burglary was committed and, among other items, a television and a video recorder were stolen. 8.     A preliminary investigation was opened against two other suspects on 17 August 1999 and against the applicant on 28 August 1999. On the same day the applicant confessed to having committed five burglaries with his accomplices between 29 January and 20 August 1999. 9.     On 31 August 1999 the applicant was charged with committing burglary on 17 August 1999 with his accomplices. 10.     The applicant gave another four statements to the investigator confessing to the other burglaries and providing additional information on how they had been perpetrated. 11.     On 17 September 1999 the preliminary investigation into the burglary of 17 August 1999 was joined to the preliminary investigations into the other four burglaries. 12.     On 7 October 1999 the charges against the applicant were amended to include the other four burglaries. 13.     The preliminary investigation was concluded on 15 October 1999 and on 21 December 1999 the Pazardzhik district public prosecutor’s office issued an indictment against the applicant and his two accomplices for the five burglaries. 14.     The Pazardzhik District Court conducted eleven hearings in the case, the last of which was held on 30 September 2004. 15.     The Court has not been informed of any subsequent developments in or of the outcome of these proceedings. 2.     The search of the applicant’s apartment 16.     On 26 August 1999 the police, with the approval of the public prosecutor’s office, searched the apartment in which the applicant and one of his accomplices had been living. The applicant had been renting the said apartment under a lease dated 2 March 1999. 17.     The search and seizure protocol indicates that the search was conducted in the presence of two witnesses. Various items were seized including three cameras, a hi-fi system, a dining set, gloves and a wrench. 3.     The applicant’s pre-trial detention 18.     On 28 August 1999, under an order issued by an investigator and approved by the public prosecutor’s office, the applicant was arrested and detained for twenty-four hours beginning at 5 p.m. The grounds for his detention were that he was suspected of having committed the burglary on 17   August 1999 because the stolen television and a wrench that had allegedly been used to perpetrate the offence had been found in his apartment, and he had attempted to abscond. 19.     On 29 August 1999 the public prosecutor’s office extended the applicant’s preliminary detention for another two days until 5 p.m. on 31   August 1999. 20.     The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention as part of the decision of 31 August 1999 to charge him and his accomplices with the burglary on 17 August 1999 (see paragraph 9 above). That decision was issued by an investigator and was confirmed later in the day by the public prosecutor’s office. In ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the investigator referred to his alleged lack of a permanent address, the fact that he had committed a number of other burglaries and, in general terms, the risk that he might abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation. 21.     The applicant’s pre-trial detention was confirmed in the decision of 7 October 1999 to amend the charges against him (see paragraph 12 above). That decision was issued by an investigator without any indication that it was subsequently confirmed by the public prosecutor’s office. In ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the investigator referred to the lack of a permanent address, the fact that he had committed a number of other burglaries and, in general terms, his personality, the gravity of the offences and the risk that he might abscond. 22.     The report of 15 October 1999 concluding the preliminary investigation (see paragraph 13 above) indicated that the applicant was in pre-trial detention. 23.     In his submissions to the Court, the applicant stated that he had appealed against the decision to order pre-trial detention on 8 October 1999. In his appeal, he had argued, inter alia , that there was no risk of him obstructing the investigation as it had effectively been completed, that he had made a full confession, that he had a permanent address and that his detention had not been ordered by a court, in violation of the Convention. In his submissions to the Court, the applicant further claimed that, because of a delay in scheduling a hearing for the examination of his appeal, on 18   October 1999 he had filed a complaint to that effect with the Supreme Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice. This purportedly led to a hearing being scheduled for the very next day, 19 October 1999, to which the applicant was summoned at very short notice, while his counsel had found out about it only by chance and had not had time to prepare for the hearing or to call witnesses. 24.     The Government, on the other hand, presented the Court with a copy of the applicant’s appeal dated by the Pazardzhik District Investigation Service as having been deposited only on 18 October 1999. 25.     On 19 October 1999 the appeal was examined by the District Court, which dismissed it on the grounds, inter alia , of the applicant’s prior criminal record and lack of employment, the gravity of the offences and the fact that he did not appear to have a permanent address, as he had been living in rented apartments in different cities and could not provide the permanent address of his next of kin. 26.     On 5 November 1999 the applicant filed another appeal against his detention and requested that bail be set. He maintained that his continued detention was in violation of the Convention, that he had a permanent address and that there was no risk that he would abscond, obstruct the investigation or re-offend. 27.     A report from the Pazardzhik Prison governor dated 9 November 1999 was presented to the District Court which certified that the applicant had thus far been detained for a period of two months and twelve days calculated from 28 August to 10 November 1999. 28.     The District Court examined the applicant’s appeal on 10   November 1999. At the hearing the applicant presented a copy of his rental agreement and called a witness, who informed the court that he would put the applicant up and pay his bail. Taking this into account, the District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered his release on bail of 400 Bulgarian levs. The release was to be effected once a recognizance had been provided. In reaching its decision the court referred, inter alia , to the fact that the applicant had been rehabilitated in respect of his previous convictions, that he had an address at which he could be contacted and that there was insufficient evidence that he might abscond, obstruct the investigation or re-offend. As evidenced by a bank receipt, the recognizance was deposited on 22 December 1999. 29.     The indictment of 21 December 1999 (see paragraph 13 above) indicated that the applicant had been in pre-trial detention since 31 August 1999 and that recognizance had still not been provided. 30.     A communiqué from the Pazardzhik Prison governor, dated 27   December 1999, was sent to the District Court to certify that the applicant had been released on 21 December 1999. However, the original text of the communiqué indicated 22 December as the release date which had been changed to 21 December by hand. 4.     The conditions of detention (a)     Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility 31.     The applicant said that he had been detained at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility from 28 August to 31   October 1999 where the cells were small, overcrowded and below street level. There was no natural light or fresh air and a strong, unbearable smell in the cells. Quite often there were rodents and cockroaches. A bucket was provided for sanitary needs. There was no hot water or soap. The applicant was not allowed out of his cell for exercise. The food provided was of insufficient quantity and substandard. The applicant was not allowed to read newspapers or books. (b)     Pazardzhik Prison 32.     The applicant stated that he was detained at the Pazardzhik Prison for about two months from 1 November 1999 onwards where the conditions were slightly better than in the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility. Similarly, though, the food was insufficient and of the same inferior quality; the cells were small and overcrowded; the light was poor and a bucket was provided for sanitary needs. Limited exercise was provided in the prison yard. (c)     Declaration 33.     The applicant’s description of the conditions at the above facilities is corroborated by the signed declaration of another detainee, Mr   R.   Dobrev. B.     The Montana criminal proceedings 1.     The criminal proceedings and the applicant’s detention 34.     On 18 April 1998 the applicant was arrested in a block of flats in the town of Montana where a burglary had been committed. He was questioned by the police and released. 35.     At the time, the applicant was living in Montana and so was able to give the authorities his address in that town. In the summer of 1998 he moved to Plovdiv. 36.     On 11 February 1999 the authorities opened a preliminary investigation against the applicant in relation to the burglary in Montana. 37.     On 15 October 1999 the authorities charged the applicant with the burglary in Montana and ordered that he be placed in pre-trial detention. The decision was issued by an investigator and confirmed later in the day by the public prosecutor’s office. In ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the investigator referred to his “personality”. As the authorities were unable to find the applicant at his Montana address, an arrest warrant for his detention was issued on the same day, 15 October 1999. 38.     The preliminary investigation in relation to the burglary in Montana was suspended on 18 October 1999. 39.     On 23 May 2000 the applicant was arrested in Plovdiv on the basis of the Montana arrest warrant. He was then transferred to the Montana Regional Investigation Service. 40.     The preliminary investigation in relation to the burglary in Montana was resumed on 29 May 2000. It is unclear when the applicant was formally charged. 41.     The preliminary investigation was completed on an unspecified date and on 5 June 2000 the investigator in charge forwarded the case file to the public prosecutor’s office with a recommendation for the applicant to be indicted for the burglary in Montana. 42.     On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against his pre-trial detention. 43.     In a decision of 22 June 2000 the Montana Regional Court found in favour of the applicant and released him on condition that he did not leave his place of residence without the authorisation of the public prosecutor’s office. The decision became final and the applicant was released on 26   June 2000. 44.     On 11 September 2000 the Montana district public prosecutor’s office discontinued the preliminary investigation against the applicant in respect of the Montana burglary for lack of evidence. The restriction imposed on the applicant not to leave his place of residence without the authorisation of the public prosecutor’s office was also lifted. 45.     The decision of the public prosecutor’s office was confirmed by the Montana District Court on 21 September 2000. 2.     The conditions of detention in the Montana Regional Investigation Service detention facility 46.     The applicant was detained at the Montana Regional Investigation Service detention facility from 23 May to 26 June 2000. 47.     He described the cells as overcrowded and lacking natural light and fresh air. The food was of insufficient quantity and substandard. He was not allowed to read newspapers or books or to go out of his cell for exercise. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Search of premises 1.     Search of premises during an inquiry 48.     At the relevant time, Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure   1974 (“the CCP”) provided that in the course of an inquiry (that is to say, when there is insufficient evidence to initiate formal criminal proceedings) a search of premises could be conducted only when examining the scene of the crime and if there would be no possibility of collecting and securing evidence if a search was not carried out immediately. 2.     Search of premises during criminal proceedings 49.     At the relevant time Article 134 of the CCP provided that a search of premises could be carried out if there was probable cause to believe that objects or documents of potential relevance to a case would be found there. Such a search could be ordered by the trial court (during the trial phase) or by the prosecutor (during the pre-trial phase) (Article 135). 50.     Searches were to be conducted in the presence of witnesses and the occupier of the premises or an adult member of his or her family. If the occupier or an adult member of his or her family was unable to be present, the search was to be conducted in the presence of the manager of the property or a representative of the municipality (Article 136). 51.     There was no special procedure through which a search warrant issued by a prosecutor could be challenged. Thus, the only avenue of appeal available was a hierarchical one to a higher ranking prosecutor (Article 182). Such appeals did not have suspensive effect (Article 183). B.     Grounds for detention 52.     The relevant provisions of the CCP and the Bulgarian courts’ practice before 1 January 2000 are summarised in the Court’s judgments in several similar cases (see, among others, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no.   31195/96, §§ 25-36, ECHR 1999-II, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria , no. 33977/96, §§ 55-59, 26 July 2001; and Yankov v. Bulgaria , no. 39084/97, §§ 79-88, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)). 53.     After 1 January 2000 the legal detention regime under the CCP was amended with the aim of ensuring compliance with the Convention (TR   1 ‑ 02 Supreme Court of Cassation (“the SCC”)). The amendments and the resulting practice of the Bulgarian courts are summarised in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Dobrev v. Bulgaria (no. 55389/00, §§   32-35, 10 August 2006) and Yordanov v. Bulgaria (no. 56856/00, §§   21-24, 10 August 2006). C.     Scope of judicial control of pre-trial detention 54.     On the basis of the relevant law before 1 January 2000, when ruling on applications for release of a person charged with a “serious” offence, the domestic courts generally disregarded facts and arguments concerning the existence or absence of a danger of the accused person’s absconding or committing offences and stated that anyone accused of a serious offence was to be remanded in custody unless exceptional circumstances dictated otherwise (see decisions of the domestic authorities criticised by the Court in the cases of Nikolova and Ilijkov , both cited above, and Zaprianov v.   Bulgaria , no. 41171/98, 30 September 2004). 55.     As of 1 January 2000 the relevant part of the amended Article 152 provided: “(1)     Detention pending trial shall be ordered [in cases concerning] offences punishable by imprisonment..., where the material in the case discloses a real danger that the accused may abscond or commit an offence. (2)     In the following circumstances it shall be considered that [such] a danger exists, unless established otherwise on the basis of the evidence in the case: 1.     in cases of special recidivism or repetition; 2.     where the charges concern a serious offence and the accused has a previous conviction for a serious offence for which he or she received an immediate sentence of not less than one year’s imprisonment; 3.     where the charges concern an offence punishable by not less than ten years’ imprisonment or a heavier punishment. (3)     Detention shall be replaced by a more lenient measure of control where there is no longer a danger that the accused will abscond or commit an offence.” 56.     Divergent interpretations of the above provisions were observed in the initial period after their entry into force on 1 January 2000. 57.     In June 2002, interpreting the amended provisions on pre-trial detention, the SCC stated that when examining an appeal against pre-trial detention the courts’ task was not only to verify whether the initial decision on remand in custody was lawful but also to establish whether continued detention was still lawful and justified. In such proceedings the courts had to examine all available evidence on all relevant aspects, including, if applicable, the amount of the recognizance (TR 1 ‑ 02 SCC). D.     Release on bail Article 150 § 5 of the CCP, as in force at the relevant time, provided: “When the measure for securing [a person’s appearance in court] is changed from a more [restrictive] one to bail, the [person] shall be released following provision of a recognizance.” E.     State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 58.     The State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 (the “SMRDA” – renamed in 2006) provided at the relevant time that the State was liable for damage caused to private persons by (a) the illegal orders, acts or omissions of government bodies and officials acting within the scope of, or in connection with, their administrative duties and (b)   investigation bodies, the prosecution and the courts for unlawful pre ‑ trial detention if a detention order was set aside for lack of lawful grounds (sections 1-2). 59.     In respect of the detention regime and conditions of detention, the relevant domestic law and practice under sections 1 and 2 of the SMRDA were summarised in the cases of Iovchev v. Bulgaria (no. 41211/98, §§   76 ‑ 80, 2 February 2006) and Hamanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44062/98, §§   56-60, 8 April 2004). 60.     In respect of the unlawful search of premises, the only reported case is one dating from 2002 in which the Sofia City Court examined, on appeal, an action for damages stemming from an allegedly unlawful search and seizure conducted by the authorities in the claimant’s home. The court quashed the judgment of the lower court and remitted the case solely because the lower court had failed to examine the action under section 1 of the SMRDA, having examined it as a tort action instead. Accordingly, the Sofia City Court instructed the lower court to re-examine the action solely under the SMRDA (реш. от 29 юли 2002 г. по гр. д. № 169/2002 г., СГС, IVб отд.). III.     REPORTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (“THE CPT”) 61.     The CPT visited Bulgaria in 1995, 1999, 2002, 2003 and 2006. 62.     The Pazardzhik Prison was visited in 1995 while the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility was visited both in 1995 and 2006. The Montana Regional Investigation Service detention facility has never been visited, but there are general observations about the problems in all investigation service establishments in the 1995, 1999, 2002 and 2006 reports. 63.     A summary of the relevant findings and observations of the CPT, prior to its 2006 visit report, is contained in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Dobrev (cited above, §§ 44-56) and Malechkov v. Bulgaria (no.   57830/00, §§ 38-50, 28 June 2007). 64.     Separately, the CPT in several of its reports has recommended that States apply a minimum standard of 4 sq m per detainee in multiple ‑ occupancy cells (see, for example, the CPT reports on the 2002 visit to Bulgaria, CPT/Inf (2004) 21, paragraphs 82 and 87, on the 2004 visit to Poland, CPT/Inf (2006) 11, paragraphs 87 and 111, and the 2006 visit to Bulgaria, CPT/Inf (2008) 11, paragraphs 55, 77 and 90). Relevant findings of the 2006 report (made public in 2008) Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service 65.     The CPT found that this facility was operating below its official capacity of forty-two places (e.g. there were 13 detainees at the time of the visit) and that there was no overcrowding in the cells (e.g. three persons in a cell measuring some 12 sq m). In addition to beds, the cells were fitted with a table, chairs and shelves. However, the cells were located in the basement and had limited access to natural light; further, artificial lighting was dim and ventilation left something to be desired. 66.     As to the regime of available activities, the CPT found that at the time of its visit detainees were being allowed to stroll around an empty room without access to natural light. Inside their cells, in addition to books and newspapers, detainees were in principle allowed to have battery ‑ operated radio and TV sets, but few such were witnessed. 67.     Certain improvements were found in respect to detainee’s access to sanitary facilities but none in respect to hygiene. Food meanwhile was provided three times a day, but there were some complaints about its quantity and/or quality. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 68.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment while detained at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility, the Pazardzhik Prison and Montana Regional Investigation Service detention facility. Article 3 of the Convention provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The Government (a)     Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility 69.     The Government submitted that the applicant had been held in pre ‑ trial detention at this facility from 28 August to 1 October 1999 and presented a report from the Pazardzhik Investigation Services’ Detention Facilities Section of the Directorate for Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of Justice (“the Pazardzhik Investigation Service Report”). The information provided therein is summarised below. 70.     The Pazardzhik Investigation Service Report indicated that the applicant had been accommodated alone in a cell measuring 3 m by 3 m by 3 m, situated in the northern section of the detention facility and had no access to direct sunlight. 71.     The Pazardzhik Investigation Service Report also stated that, in accordance with the regulations in place at the relevant time, the applicant had been assigned a wooden bed with a mattress, pillow and two blankets. All the cells had central heating and light was provided by two light bulbs situated above the cell doors which were never turned off. There was natural ventilation and extractor fans were also in use. Access to sanitary facilities was provided twenty-four hours a day. Detainees could bath twice a week during the summer and were provided with soap. Food was provided by Pazardzhik Prison. Measures were taken to exterminate insects and rodents in the cells where necessary. The relevant public prosecutor had the power to allow family visits. Medical checks were performed on the detainee’s arrival, and thereafter once a week and in the event of an emergency. 72.     In summary, the Government argued that the detention conditions and regime had not been intended to degrade or humiliate the applicant. They also argued that the suffering and humiliation involved did not go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment, so that any ill ‑ treatment had not attained the minimum level of severity necessary to bring it within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. There had not, therefore, been a violation of that provision on that account. 73.     In conclusion, the Government claimed that the applicant had been held at this facility in conditions of detention which completely fulfilled the requirement for respect of his human dignity, that the distress and hardship he had endured during the period did not exceed the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that the resulting anguish did not go beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention. (b)     Pazardzhik Prison 74.     The Government submitted that the applicant had been held in pre ‑ trial detention at this facility from 2 to 21 November 1999. They also presented a report (“the Pazardzhik Prison Report”) from the deputy prison governor, dated 3 February 2005, which indicated that the applicant had been detained there from 2 November to 21 December 1999, but later in the text claimed that he had been released on 21 November 1999. The remainder of the information provided in the Pazardzhik Prison Report is summarised below. 75.     The applicant had been attached to second prisoners’ company, which had been accommodated in seven cells with a total living area of 182.33 sq. m. The size of the cells ranged from 6.45 sq. m to 38.85 sq. m. During the year 2000 the average number of occupants per cell in the second prisoners’ company was sixty-one. 76.     During the period of the applicant’s detention only five of the cells had sanitary facilities, so communal facilities had been provided consisting of four separate toilet cabins and two extended sinks with four taps of running water each. Access to these facilities had been possible at set periods several times during the day, usually before and after meals and the various other daily activities. As an exception, access to the sanitary facilities had also been possible at other times. 77.     All the cells had access to direct sunlight from windows which could be opened to allow fresh air to circulate. Artificial light had been available from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. 78.     Each detainee had been provided with clothes, a bed with a mattress and bed linen (sheets, a pillow cover and two blankets). They had also been provided with a locker where they could place their personal belongings. A washing machine had also been available for them to wash their clothes. In 1999 boilers had been installed in each corridor to provide detainees with easier access to hot water. 79.     The detainees had been provided free-of-charge with toiletry products and materials to wash and disinfect their clothes and living areas. However, the Pazardzhik Prison Report noted that the level of cleanliness depended in part on the detainees who were responsible, under the supervision of the prison authorities, for keeping their living areas clean. 80.     The prison authorities had concluded an agreement with a private anti-infestation company to monitor and, if necessary, exterminate pests, as evidenced by numerous invoices for such services dating from 1999. 81.     The prison kitchen prepared the food for the detainees. The daily menus had been set and controlled for quantity and quality by the prison authorities. The menu for the week from 27 September to 3 October 1999 had been presented to the Court as an example. It could be seen that it provided for a balanced diet which included meat, fish and vegetarian dishes, dairy products and fresh vegetables. 82.     During 1999 detainees had been provided with an hour of daily outdoor exercise. A sports hall with weightlifting equipment and courts for playing basketball, volleyball and mini-football had also been available. 83.     Daily access to a prison library with over 8,000 books had also been provided and newspapers and magazines had been available as the prison had taken out a number of subscriptions for such media. Individual subscriptions had also been possible. The prison also had a chapel, a priest and organised religious services. It also had an equipped cinema hall where films were shown. In 1999 each cell and dormitory was connected to a cable television network offering over fifty channels and had been equipped with television sets (personal or state-owned). Detainees could also attend professional development or literacy courses. 84.     Detainees’ correspondence with their lawyers, relatives and friends had been unrestricted and was not registered. There had also been no restriction on the number of petitions, appeals or requests they could make. Telephone conversations could also be organised with relatives and lawyers. 85.     Detainees could also meet privately, without restriction or limitation, with their lawyers in a specially designated room. 86.     With regard to the applicant, the Pazardzhik Prison Report noted that while held at that detention facility he had not filed any complaints with the prison governor in respect of the conditions of detention. In addition, he had been found to be completely healthy at the medical check ‑ up that was performed on his arrival, had not made any complaints and until his release had not sought any medical attention at the prison’s infirmary. 87.     In conclusion, the Government argued that the applicant had been held at the facility in conditions of detention which completely fulfilled the requirement for respect of his human dignity, that the distress and hardship he had endured during the period did not exceed the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that the resulting anguish did not go beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention. (c)     The Montana Regional Investigation Service detention facility 88.     The Government noted that the applicant had been held in pre-trial detention at this facility from 23 May to 26 June 2000 and presented a report from the Montana Regional Investigation Services’ Detention Facilities (“the Montana Investigation Service Report”). The information provided therein is summarised below. 89.     The applicant had been held in cell no. 14, which was 4.30 m long by 2.4 m wide and had a window measuring 1.9 m by 0.6 m. He had been alone in the cell until 2 June 2000, when another detainee had also been placed there. On 8   June 2000 the two had been moved to cell no. 5, which was 3 m long by 2.3 m wide and had a window measuring 1.9 m by 0.95   m. Both cells had a functioning ventilation system. Access to hot water had been provided every morning and evening and to sanitary facilities upon request because none had been available in the cells at the relevant time. Owing to the lack of a designated area, detainees were permitted to exercise in the corridor of the detention facility. Pest control had also been carried out when necessary. 90.     Food had been provided from the canteen of the Montana police station and had been monitored for quality by a paramedic. It consisted of three meals a day, two of which had been hot dishes including one containing meat. The applicant could also separately purchase food, soap, newspapers, magazines and cigarettes as evidenced by a record listing all such purchases he had made. 91.     During his detention at this facility the applicant had not filed any complaints regarding conditions there. 92.     In conclusion, the Government argued that the applicant had been held at this facility in conditions of detention which completely fulfilled the requirement for respect of his human dignity, that the distress and hardship he had endured during the period did not exceed the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that the resulting anguish did not go beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention. 2.     The applicant 93.     The applicant reiterated his complaints and contended that the conditions of detention in which he was held were inadequate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention. He relied, inter alia , on the findings of the Court in other similar cases against Bulgaria (such as, for example, Malechkov , cited above), the assessments of the CPT in their reports, the conclusions of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in their annual reports and the declaration of his fellow detainee, Mr R. Dobrev (see paragraph 33 above), in respect of the conditions of detention at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility and Pazardzhik Prison. 94.     The applicant also claimed that in Pazardzhik Prison detainees had to use a bucket to relieve themselves because the guards did not allow them out of their cells to use the toilets. He also claimed that he was not provided with a separate bed in either the Pazardzhik or the Montana Regional Investigation Service detention facility. In addition, during the summer the temperature in the cells at the Montana Regional Investigation Service detention facility had been very high and there was no fresh air. Moreover, during the period of his detention at this facility his wife had been pregnant which had made his detention more frustrating and traumatic. B.     General principles 95.     The relevant general principles under Article 3 of the Convention are summarised in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Navushtanov v.   Bulgaria (no. 57847/00, §§ 108-13, 24 May 2007), Dobrev (cited above, §§ 120-24) and Yordanov (cited above, §§ 85-89). C.     Application of the general principles to the present case 1.     The declaration by Mr R. Dobrev 96.     The Court notes at the outset that in respect of the conditions of detention in the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility and Pazardzhik Prison the applicant presented a signed declaration by another detainee, Mr R. Dobrev (see paragraph 33 above). However, in so far as that individual had an application before the Court concerning conditions of detention in the same facilities at the same time ( Dobrev , cited above), it finds that his statement should not be considered objective and should not therefore be given any particular weight. 2.     The Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility 97.     The Court notes that a discrepancy exists in respect of the period during which the applicant had been held at this facility. He claimed that he had been detained there from 28 August to 31 October 1999 and that he had then been transferred to Pazardzhik Prison (see paragraphs 31 and 32 above). The Government meanwhile asserted in their observations that he had been held at this facility only until 1 October 1999, as indicated in the Pazardzhik Investigation Service Report (see paragraph 69 above), but agreed that he had been held at Pazardzhik Prison from 2 November 1999 onwards (see paragraph 74 above), which means that the applicant’s whereabouts are unaccounted for during the month of October 1999. The Court notes that the applicant appealed against his pre-trial detention on 8 or 18 October 1999 (see paragraphs 23 and 24 above), his detention was confirmed on 7 and 19 October 1999 (see paragraphs 21 and 25 above) and a number of documents noted that he had been in detention during the month of October (see paragraphs 22, 27 and 29 above). Thus, the Court finds that the applicant was detained at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility from 28 August to 1 or 2 November 1999, that is, for two months and four or five days. 98.     The Court notes, at the outset, that in other similar cases against Bulgaria it had the occasion to examine the conditions of detention at this facility over the relevant period and found them to have been inadequate (see Yordanov , cited above, §§ 90-100 and §§ 137-39; Dobrev , cited above, §§ 125-32 and §§ 137-39; and Malechkov , cited above, §§ 136-47). 99.     The Court observes that the parties disagreed as to whether the applicant had available a sufficient living area, whether there had been easy access to sanitary facilities and whether the material conditions and food were adequate. They did agree that the applicant had been accommodated in a cell which was below street level and had no direct sunlight. Nor had he been permitted out of his cell for exercise. The Court considers that the fact that the applicant was confined to his cell for practically twenty-four hours a day for over two months, in apparent isolation, without exposure to natural light and without any possibility of physical and other out-of-cell activities must have caused him considerable suffering. In the absence of compelling security considerations there was no justification for subjecting the applicant to such limitations. No such considerations have been put forward for assessment by the Court. 100.     In conclusion, having regard to the stringent regime to which the applicant was subjected and the absence of any proffered justification for it, the Court considers that the distress and hardship he endured exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention was attained. 101.     Therefore, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility. 3.     Pazardzhik Prison 102.     The Court notes that a discrepancy also exists in respect of the period during which the applicant had been held at the prison. He claimed that he had been detained there for about two months from 1 November 1999 onwards (see paragraph 32 above). The Government meanwhile asserted in their observations that he had been held at this facility from 2 to 21 November 1999 and presented the Court with the Pazardzhik Prison Report which indicated both 21 November and 21 December 1999 as the end of the period of the applicant’s detention at this facility (see paragraph   74 above). The Court notes that the applicant provided the required recognizance only on 22 December 1999 (see paragraph 28 above), which concurs with the information contained in the indictment of 21 December 1999 (see paragraph 29 above) and the communiqué from the Pazardzhik Prison governor, dated 27 December 1999 (see paragraph   30 above). Thus, the Court finds that the applicant was detained at Pazardzhik Prison from 2 November to 22 December 1999, that is, for one month and twenty days. 103.     The Court notes, at the outset, that the applicant found the conditions at this facility to have been better than those at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility. It also takes note of the Government’s detailed submissions and the supporting documents they have presented (see paragraphs 74-87 above) to show that the conditions of detention were materially different from what the applicant had contended. Accordingly, the Court finds that it must afford them the required weight when accessing the merits of the applicant’s complaint. Lastly, it notes that in other similar cases against Bulgaria it has had the occasion to examine the conditions of detention at this facility over the relevant period and found them to have been adequate (see Navushtanov , §§ 124-33 and Malechkov , §§ 148-58, both cited above