CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 janvier 2015

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sB1AFDE2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE138E5D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sE4FAF15D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .s13887275 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF32B1133 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA426CA09 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s3C960594 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s17C3FED1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC8702D41 { width:154.61pt; display:inline-block } .s70DF58E9 { width:3.3pt; display:inline-block } .sB9131DA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-before:always; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s13907D4E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sF801E04E { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:20.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD1DA64 { margin-left:21.68pt; padding-left:14.32pt; font-family:Arial } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       FOURTH SECTION           CASE OF NESHKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA   (Applications nos. 36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 and 9717/13)       JUDGMENT                 STRASBOURG   27 January 2015     FINAL   01/06/2015   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ineta Ziemele, President ,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Faris Vehabović, judges , and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in six applications (nos. 36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 and 9717/13) 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 five Bulgarian nationals, Mr Svetlomir Nikolov Neshkov, Mr   Georgi   Ivanov Tsekov, Mr Pavel Enchev Simeonov, Mr Yordan Kolev Yordanov and Mr Ivan Ivanov Zlatev (“the applicants”). Mr Neshkov lodged applications nos. 36925/10 and 9717/13 respectively on 18 June 2010 and 27 December 2012. Mr Tsekov lodged application no. 21487/12 on 16   March 2012. Mr Simeonov lodged application no. 72893/12 on 5   November 2012. Mr Yordanov lodged application no. 73196/12 on 7   November 2012. Mr Zlatev lodged application no. 77718/12 on 16   October 2012. 2 .     Mr Neshkov, having been granted leave by the President of the Section to present his own case under Rule 36 § 2 in fine of the Rules of Court, was not legally represented. Mr Tsekov, Mr Simeonov and Mr Zlatev were not legally represented either. Mr Yordanov was represented by Ms   D.   Fartunova, a lawyer practising in Sofia and working with the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. 3.     The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms L. Gyurova and Ms K. Radkova, of the Ministry of Justice. 4 .     The applicants alleged, inter alia , that the conditions of their detention in various correctional facilities in Bulgaria had been or were inhuman and degrading. Mr Neshkov in addition alleged that he had not had effective domestic remedies in that respect. 5 .     On 20 March 2014 the President of Section Four, to which the cases had been allocated, decided to grant priority to the applications under Rules   41 and 61 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court, give the Government notice of the applicants’ complaints concerning the conditions of their detention and the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies in that respect, and invite the parties to comment on whether the case was suitable for a pilot ‑ judgment procedure (see Rule 61 § 2 (a) and (b)). At the same time, the President, acting as a single judge (see Rule 54 § 3), declared inadmissible the remainder of one of the applications lodged by Mr   Neshkov (no. 36925/10). 6 .     Mr Neshkov and Mr Yordanov submitted observations in reply to these of the Government by 9 October 2014, the time-limit fixed by the President of the Section. Mr Tsekov and Mr Zlatev failed to do so. Having been advised of this by letters of 24 October 2014, they submitted such observations out of time, by letters dated respectively 29 October and 6   November 2014, but the President of the Section decided to admit these observations, as well as Mr Zlatev’s claim for just satisfaction, to the case file (Rule 38 § 1 in fine of the Rules of Court). Later, in a letter dated 23 and postmarked 26 November 2014, Mr Tsekov submitted a claim for just satisfaction. In Mr Simeonov’s case, a letter by the Court of 24 July 2014, sent to his address in Burgas Prison, came back to the Court with a note that he had been released from that prison on 15 July 2014. Mr Simeonov did not inform the Court of this change of address. Nor did he submit observations within the time-limit fixed by the President of the Section. In view of this, by a letter of 24 October 2014, sent by registered mail to his permanent address (the only one available to the Court), Mr Simeonov was advised that the Court could find that he was no longer interested in pursuing his application and decide to strike it out of its list. Mr Simeonov did not reply to this letter; it is unclear whether it reached him. 7 .     In a letter dated 20 and postmarked 26 November 2014 Mr Zlatev said that he no longer maintained his application and wished for it to be struck out of the Court’s list. He did not give any reasons for this request. 8.     In addition to the parties’ observations, third-party submissions were received from the non-governmental organisations Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights and Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, which had been granted leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the written proceedings (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court). The applicants’ and Government’ replies to these submissions (Rule 44 § 6) were incorporated in their respective observations. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9 .     Mr Neshkov was born in 1971 and is currently detained in Belene Prison. Mr Tsekov was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Stroitel, an open-type prison hostel attached to Burgas Prison. Mr Simeonov was born in 1976. He was detained in Burgas Prison until 15 July 2014, when he was released; his current whereabouts are unknown. Mr Yordanov was born in 1962 and is currently detained in Atlant, a closed-type prison hostel in Troyan attached to Lovech Prison. Mr Zlatev was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Burgas Prison. A.     The case of Mr Neshkov 10.     Since his incarceration Mr Neshkov has been placed successively in Varna Prison (2002-05), Lovech Prison (2005-06), Vratsa Prison (2006-14), and Belene Prison (2014-present). In the course of transfers to court hearings he also spent short periods of time, one to two days on each occasion, in Stara Zagora Prison. 1.     The conditions of Mr Neshkov’s detention in Varna Prison 11 .     Mr Neshkov was placed in Varna Prison on 19 June 2002 in execution of eight separate criminal sentences. In a decision of 25 October 2007 of the Lovech District Court these were combined into an aggregate sentence of twenty-eight years and eleven months’ imprisonment. 12 .     In the course of his stay in Varna Prison Mr Neshkov was kept in the prison’s high-security area, Group 3 (life prisoners and other prisoners under special regime) on the ground floor, in cells nos. 15, 19, 19a and 24. Cell no. 15 measured 6.5 by 3.2 metres and had two windows letting in enough sunlight and allowing the cell to be properly aired. Cells nos. 19 and   24 each measured 3.2 by 2 metres and had one window, and, according to the Government, were not overcrowded. According to them, cell no. 19a measured 2 by 1.9 metres, and was equipped with a bed, a metal locker and a table. According to Mr Neshkov, the cell was only equipped with a bed and a plastic bucket. According to the Government, Mr Neshkov was during most of the time kept alone in these cells, all of which had windows that let in enough sunlight and allowed them to be properly aired. According to Mr   Neshkov, the cell windows were covered with metal sheets, which did not permit sunlight or fresh air to come in, and the cells were not equipped with a ventilation system. None of these cells was equipped with a toilet. The Government said that they had no records on the exact amount of time spent by Mr Neshkov in each of these four cells. Mr Neshkov submitted that he had spent two years in cell 19a. This cell, as well as the others in which he had been housed – and indeed all cells in the prison’s high security area – had been kept locked all the time, save for three periods of thirty to forty minutes in the morning, at lunch and in the evening. During these periods, he was able to go to the toilet, but the rest of time he had to use a bucket to relieve his sanitary needs. Mr Neshkov submitted that while in cell 24, he was tied to the bed with handcuffs for thirty-four days. 13 .     According to the Government, all inmates in Varna Prison, including Mr Neshkov, were provided with adequate health care. Varna Prison had a medical centre, and where necessary inmates were consulted by outside medical doctors. 2.     The conditions of Mr Neshkov’s detention in Lovech, Vratsa and Belene Prisons 14 .     On 29 June 2005 Mr Neshkov was transferred to Lovech Prison, then on 11 October 2006 to Vratsa Prison, and then on 23 May 2014 to Belene Prison, where he is currently housed. He did not provide any information about the conditions in these prisons. 3.     The conditions of Mr Neshkov’s detention in Stara Zagora Prison 15 .     Between 2002 and 2008 Mr Neshkov spent periods of time of several days in Stara Zagora Prison on a number of occasions in connection with court hearings. 16 .     According to the Government, all inmates from other prisons who spent short periods of time in Stara Zagora Prison were housed in a special wing. Since they were very diverse – sentenced and remand prisoners, men and women, adults and minors, inmates from open and closed correctional facilities, first time and repeat offenders – they had to be kept separated in locked cells, primarily for their own security. That, and the fact that this wing contained the disciplinary cells, had made it necessary to classify as a high-security zone. The sometimes high number of such transit prisoners had made it necessary to put up to four of them in one cell. They had been allowed to visit the toilet three times a day, separately for men and women and for adults and minors, and to spend time in the open air. They had taken their meals in the cells. Hygiene in the cells had been maintained by the inmates themselves. All the windows had glazing, and the cells had been repainted in 2003 and 2006. However, because of the large number of prisoners transiting through the premises, they were wearing quite fast. 4.     Mr Neshkov’s claim for damages in relation to the conditions of his detention in Stara Zagora Prison on various occasions in 2002-08 17 .     On 8 August 2008 Mr Neshkov brought a claim under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see   paragraph   125 below) in relation to the conditions of his detention in Stara Zagora Prison. He sought 7,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in non ‑ pecuniary damages. On 25 September 2008 the Sofia City Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings, citing Mr Neshkov’s failure to state clearly the alleged facts and his request for relief. Following an appeal by Mr Neshkov, in a decision of 16 December 2008 (опр.   №   13975 от 16   декември 2008 г. по адм. д. № 14809/2008 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court quashed that decision and directed that the claim be examined on the merits. On 18 February 2009 the Sofia City Administrative Court transferred the case to the territorially competent Stara Zagora Administrative Court. 18 .     At Mr Neshkov’s request, the Stara Zagora Administrative Court ordered the administration of Stara Zagora Prison to provide information about Mr Neshkov’s stays in this prison between 10 October 2002 and   25   February 2008 and about the conditions in which he had been kept in the course of these stays. The prison administration was able to provide such information only in relation to 2007, explaining that the records concerning short-term stays of prisoners normally housed in other prisons were not kept for more than a year. 19 .     In a judgment of 6 July 2009 (реш. № 12 от 6 юли 2009 г. по адм.   д. № 104/2009 г., АС-Враца) the Vratsa Administrative Court dismissed Mr Neshkov’s claim. It noted that the exact periods of time when he had been housed in Stara Zagora Prison in 2002-08 could only be established for 2007, because the prison’s records for the remaining years had not been preserved. In 2007, Mr Neshkov had been housed in this prison on five occasions: on 18-19 January, alone in a cell; on 30-31 March, in a cell with three other inmates; on 4-6 April, in a cell with three other inmates; on 14-15 June, in a cell with two other inmates; and on 3-4 July, in a cell with one other inmate. During these periods, he had not been provided with bed linen. The cells in which he had been kept had been infested with cockroaches, had not been sufficiently lit during the day but constantly lit at night, and had not had in-cell toilets. As a result, Mr Neshkov had had to relieve himself in a bucket and urinate in a plastic bottle. The court made no findings in relation to the size of the cells or the number of inmates held in them, noting that at the relevant time there had been no binding legal requirement for minimum space per prisoner. However, it went on to say that Mr Neshkov had failed to prove that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of these conditions. Moreover, he had only spent short periods of time in these cells. While a long period of time in such extremely poor conditions of detention could cause mental suffering, the same could not be said of a short period. There was therefore no damage to make good. 20 .     Mr Neshkov appealed on points of law, arguing, inter alia , that the Vratsa Administrative Court had erred by dismissing his claim as unproved in relation to the remainder of the period 2002-08 based on the lack of relevant prison records. He also challenged the court’s ruling on the existence or otherwise of non-pecuniary damage. 21 .     In a judgment of 19 March 2010 (реш. № 3608 от 19 март 2010 г. по адм. д. № 11645/2009 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment, fully agreeing with its reasoning. It noted, in particular, that Mr Neshkov had failed to prove the existence of damage. 5.     Mr Neshkov’s claim for damages in relation to the conditions of his detention in Varna Prison in 2002-05 22 .     On 24 April 2009 Mr Neshkov brought a claim against the Ministry of Justice under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraph 125 below) in relation to the conditions of his detention in Varna Prison in 2002-05. He sought BGN 50,000, plus interest, in non-pecuniary damages. 23.     Mr Neshkov requested to be exempted from paying a court fee. On 28 April 2009 the Varna Administrative Court refused his request, holding that the declaration of means that he had presented was not sufficient to elucidate his and his family’s financial situation. It could not therefore be accepted that he was indigent. 24.     At the first hearing, held on 18 September 2009, the court instructed Mr Neshkov to specify which part of the damage allegedly suffered by him was due to acts and which part to omissions of prison officials. The court also directed the governor of Varna Prison to provide information about the conditions of Mr Neshkov’s detention, gave leave to Mr Neshkov to call witnesses, and ordered an expert report on the compatibility of the conditions in the cells and toilets in Varna Prison with the applicable standards. 25.     On 28 September 2009 Mr Neshkov requested to be exempted from paying a deposit for the expert report. The next day, 29 September 2009, the court refused his request, giving the same reason as previously: that the declaration of means presented by Mr Neshkov was not sufficient to elucidate his and his family’s financial situation and show that he was indeed indigent. Mr Neshkov appealed against this ruling, but in a decision of 10 November 2009 (опр. № 13367 от 10 ноември 2009 г. по адм. д. №   14179/2009 г., ВАС, ІА о.) a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court refused to examine the appeal, holding that such rulings by the first-instance court were not subject to appeal. Mr Neshkov appealed further. In a decision of 25 January 2010 (опр. № 912 от 25   януари 2010 г. по адм. д. № 16497/2009 г., ВАС, петчл. с-в) a five ‑ member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the three ‑ member panel’s decision. 26.     In the meantime, on 29 September 2009 the Varna Administrative Court decided to strike one of Mr Neshkov’s witnesses off. It found that this witness, who was incarcerated, was a dangerous criminal regarded by the prison authorities as cruel and extremely resilient. There was therefore a risk that, if brought to the court to take part in a hearing, he might try to flee. The court instructed Mr Neshkov to seek another witness in relation to the facts that he was seeking to prove through this witness’ testimony. 27.     Following further applications by Mr Neshkov, on 17 March 2010 the court refused to vary its earlier evidentiary rulings. 28.     At a hearing on 9 April 2010 Mr Neshkov asked the judge hearing the case to recuse herself, citing her rulings in relation to the evidence. She refused to do so, saying that these rulings were not indicative of any bias against Mr Neshkov. The court then heard one witness called by Mr   Neshkov and ordered the prison governor to present the medical documents relating to Mr Neshkov’s stay in Varna Prison in 2002-05. 29 .     In a judgment of 5 July 2010 (реш. № 1405 от 5 юли 2010 г. по адм. д. № 1093/2009 г., АС-Варна) the Varna Administrative Court dismissed Mr Neshkov’s claim. It held that Mr Neshkov, who bore the burden of proving all elements of the tort under section 1 of the State and Municipalities for Damage Act 1988, including the existence of damage, had failed to make out his claim that he had suffered harm as a result of the conditions of his detention. He had not presented evidence that he had felt bad or fallen ill as a result of these conditions. The witness evidence that he had adduced was – unlike medical expert evidence – not sufficient to prove medical complaints. There was no indication that the pain and suffering allegedly endured by him had led to any permanent damage to his health. Moreover, it could not be overlooked that, in view of the fact that he had been incarcerated pursuant to more than two sentences, he had been placed under a prison regime entailing heightened security. 30 .     On an appeal by Mr Neshkov, in a judgment of 23 February 2011 (реш. № 2738 от 23 февруари 2011 г. по адм. д. № 11507/2010 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Varna Administrative Court’s judgment and remitted the case. It held that the lower court had, in breach of the rules of procedure, failed to indicate to Mr Neshkov which of his allegations were unsupported by evidence. For instance, the lower court had held Mr Neshkov’s omission to present medical evidence on his state of health against him without instructing him to present such evidence. Since it was apparently of the view that such evidence was required, it could have even appointed a medical expert of its own motion. Its failure to do so could not be explained by Mr Neshkov’s inability to bear the costs of such an expert report. Such financial considerations could not be allowed to trump the fundamental constitutional right of access to an independent court. The lower court had in addition failed to rule in terms on several of Mr   Neshkov’s evidentiary requests. That, as well as its failure to obtain the medical documents concerning Mr Neshkov’s stay in Varna Prison, had in effect prevented Mr Neshkov from making out his claim. 31.     The Varna Administrative Court re-examined the case at four hearings. It also obtained, by way of a letter of request to the Lovech Administrative Court, the statement of a witness for the applicant who was housed in Lovech Prison. 32 .     In a judgment of 11 November 2011 (реш. № 2647 от 11 ноември 2011 г. по адм. д. № 758/2011 г., АС-Варна) the Varna Administrative Court again dismissed Mr Neshkov’s claim. It found that after his admission to Varna Prison, between 19 June and 19 August 2002 Mr Neshkov had been kept in cell no. 15. This cell had measured twelve by three metres and had been full of beds and cabinets. Mr Neshkov had had to share the cell with ten to fifteen other inmates, some of whom smokers. The cell had not had proper artificial lighting or access to sunlight. It had not had a ventilation system either, and it had not been possible to air it properly because its windows could not open widely. Nor had the cell had a toilet; it had only been equipped with a bucket for sanitary needs. Following a serious deterioration in Mr Neshkov’s mental state as a result of the conditions in this cell, on 19 August 2002 the prison administration had moved him to cell no. 24, an isolation cell, where he had remained alone. This cell had not had a ventilation system or direct access to sunlight, because its window had been covered with a metal sheet. It had not had a toilet or any furniture apart from a bed. During his time in this cell – until   19 November 2002 – Mr Neshkov had not always been allowed to use the half-an-hour out-of-cell time permitted three times a day under his prison regime. After that he had been moved for a period of about eight or nine months to cell no. 19a, which had been two by two metres and had only been equipped with a bed and a bucket for sanitary needs. This cell’s window had been covered with a perforated metal sheet. The court said that the evidence presented by Mr Neshkov did not enable it to make any findings of fact in relation to the period after 19 August 2003. 33 .     Based on these findings of fact, the Varna Administrative Court held that the state of affairs which lay at the origin of Mr Neshkov’s claim had come to an end on 19 August 2003. The applicable five-year limitation period had therefore expired on 19 August 2008, whereas Mr Neshkov’s claim had been lodged in April 2009. Therefore, in as much as it concerned the period before 19 August 2003, the claim was time-barred. In as much it concerned the period after that date, it was unproved: there was no evidence of either unlawful acts or omissions on the part of the prison authorities or of harm suffered by Mr Neshkov as a result of that. 34.     Mr Neshkov appealed on points of law. He argued, inter alia , that the Varna Administrative Court had completely disregarded part of the evidence and had erroneously found that there was no evidence in relation to the period after 19 August 2003. For instance, the prison administration had itself admitted that throughout Mr Neshkov’s stay in Varna Prison the cells had not been equipped with toilets or ventilation systems. 35 .     In a judgment of 3 July 2012 (реш. № 9586 от 3 юли 2012 г. по адм. д. № 1247/2012 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Varna Administrative Court’s judgment in the following terms: “... [T]he [lower] court gathered all relevant evidence, analysed it in depth and in detail, and came to correct and lawful findings that are fully shared by this court. Having elucidated the facts, the [lower] court was correct to hold that the latest date on which prison officials were proved to have carried out the impugned acts or omissions during the period under consideration was 19 August 2003. Not one piece of evidence concerns the period after that date. The court was therefore correct to hold that that was the point in time when the impugned acts and omissions of the [prison] administration had come to an end. ... [T]he five-year limitation period [therefore] started to run on that date and expired on 19 August 2008. In these circumstances, and given that the statement of claim was lodged on 24 April 2009, it was proper to hold that, regardless of the veracity or otherwise of the allegations about the period of time between 7 June 2002 and 23 April 2004, the claim concerning that period was time ‑ barred. As regards the remainder of the period – between 24 April 2004 and 20   May 2005 – the case file does not contain any evidence showing that the alleged unlawful acts and omissions of officials of Varna Prison have indeed taken place. The prerequisites for allowing a claim under section 1 of the [1988 Act] are not in place, and the lower court was right to reject the claim as unproved.” B.     The case of Mr Tsekov 36 .     On 2 September 2011, following his extradition from Romania, Mr   Tsekov was placed in Sofia Prison to serve a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment whose execution had started on 27 August 2008. He remained in this prison until 25 January 2012, when he was transferred to Burgas Prison. He arrived in Burgas Prison on 30 January 2012, and the same day was placed in Unit five, where he remained until 13 February 2014, when he was transferred to Stroitel open-type prison hostel, attached to Burgas Prison. 37 .     Mr Tsekov alleged that the cells in which he was kept, first cell no.   317 and then cell no. 309 on the third floor, measured about four by five metres, making for a total surface of 20 square metres, and housed between fourteen and twenty-two inmates, which made for less than one square metre each. Since the cell had six triple-bunk and one double-bunk beds, six lockers, and three table, the actual amount of free space was even less, as low as 0.2 square metre per person. The Government did not provide any information in relation to cell no. 317, but said that cell no. 309 was 4.23 by   7.05 metres, which made for 29.82 square metres of surface. According to them, the number of inmates in the cell was thirteen, and the amount of space per inmate was 2.29 square metres. The cell had two windows close to the ceiling, one metre by fifty centimetres each, which allegedly did not allow direct sunlight into the cell or its proper ventilation. Since there were no cells for non-smokers, Mr Tsekov had to share the cell with smokers, which was allegedly particularly problematic for him in view of the lack of ventilation. According to the Government, the issue of smoking was being resolved amicably among the cellmates; according to Mr Tsekov, that was absolutely not the case. He said that the problem could not be solved as up to 90% of inmates in Burgas Prison were smokers. Mr Tsekov was not one, and he only received cigarettes from the outside to use them as currency, as was customary in the prison. He also said that there were four or five television sets in the cell that showed different programmes, which, given the little space available and the level of noise, made it impossible to watch television. There were no newspapers or magazines available in the prison either, and access to the poorly stocked library was only possible once a week. 38 .     According to Mr Tsekov, there was no running water or toilet in the cell, and inmates had to use a bucket to relieve themselves at night, when the cell was locked. Mr Tsekov’s floor had only four Asian-type toilets without running water for the approximately two hundred and ten inmates housed on that floor, and only two or three showers, which often did not work (and, when they worked, had hot water only twice a week for four hours); as a result, inmates had to use small cans to bathe themselves. According to the Government, there was running water in the toilets, and hot water was made available twice a week for five hours. Mr Tsekov also said that cleaning the toilets was very hard because the prison administration did not supply enough cleaning products. 39 .     According to Mr Tsekov, the prison canteen measured about four or five by fifteen metres and accommodated eighty people at the same time, which caused severe overcrowding and discomfort while eating. According to the Government, the number of inmates in the canteen during meals was between fifty and sixty. Mr Tsekov said that the quality of the food was very poor, and that outside food parcels did not compensate for that, especially since there were no refrigerators in which to store them. According to the Government, each inmate was provided with 2,622   calories a day, in line with official tables. Each inmate was entitled to receive five kilogrammes of food parcels a month and five kilogrammes of fruit and vegetables. According to Mr Tsekov, inmates were in practice given less than half of what was necessary in terms of food. 40 .     Mr Tsekov alleged that there was no place in the prison for self ‑ cooking, sports or cinema. The Government said that self-cooking in the cells could not be allowed for hygiene reasons. They also said that in 2012 Mr Tsekov had been enrolled in a volleyball tournament, but had desisted after one match for health reasons. In February 2013 He had refused to take part in another tournament, again for health reasons. Mr   Tsekov disputed these assertions. According to the Government, the outside walking area of the prison had bodybuilding equipment that the inmates could use, and the prison authorities regularly organised chess, backgammon, bridge and arm-wrestling contests. The prison was also equipped with a projection room, where the Advent and Evangelical churches showed religious films; Mr Tsekov had not expressed a wish to attend a projection. Mr Tsekov said that since his arrival in Burgas Prison there had been only one projection. 41 .     Mr Tsekov also referred to the problems that he was encountering in relation to telephone communication with the outside world. 42 .     Lastly, Mr Tsekov, who apparently had no health insurance, claimed that health care in prison was inadequate, with no qualified doctors but only a feldsher working on site, and no provision of medicines free of charge. An outside medical doctor visited the prison twice a week, and it was almost impossible to see him in view of the large number of inmates in the prison and the need to obtain an appointment. According to the Government, Mr   Tsekov had on two occasions in 2011 and 2013 been treated in the prison hospital in Sofia and in a hospital in Burgas. C.     The case of Mr Simeonov 43 .     Mr Simeonov entered Burgas Prison on 12 April 2012 to serve a sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment; he was released on 15 July 2014. He was placed in unit four. On 7 December 2012, following a decision of the commission in charge of allocating prisoners, he was transferred to Zhitarovo open-type prison hostel, attached to Burgas Prison. 44 .     Mr Simeonov alleged that the cell in which he was kept, cell no.   309 on the third floor, measured about twenty square metres and housed fifteen inmates. There was no running water or toilet in the cell. From eight o’clock in the evening until six o’clock in the morning, during which time the cell apparently remained locked, the inmates had to use buckets to relieve their needs. There were four toilets on the floor but access to them was limited as they were used by about two hundred inmates. According to the Government, cell no. 309 measured 29.82 square metres and housed thirteen inmates, which gave 2.29 metres per inmate. 45 .     Mr Simeonov said that he was allowed to take a shower twice a week, between 1.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. However, the bathroom, which measured six square metres, featured only one shower and two sinks and usually the inmates used small cans to pour water on themselves. The size of the bathroom and the time allowed for showering made it impossible for all two hundred inmates who used the bathroom to shower properly. Immediately adjacent to the bathroom were the two litter containers for the entire floor. 46 .     According to Mr Simeonov, many inmates in Burgas Prison suffered from tuberculosis as a result of the poor hygienic conditions there. He did not however allege that he had himself contracted the disease. According to the Government, in Burgas Prison there had been six registered cases of tuberculosis in 2012, four cases in 2013, and five cases in 2014. None of these had been in units four or five. 47 .     Mr Simeonov also complained that telephone calls made from prison were expensive, that the food shop in the prison was overpriced, and that health care in the prison was inadequate. D.     The case of Mr Yordanov 48.     Since his incarceration in Bulgaria in 2007 Mr Yordanov has been placed successively in Sofia Prison (2007), Pleven Prison (2007-10), Lovech Prison (2010-12) and Atlant Prison Hostel in Troyan (2012 ‑ present). 1.     The conditions of Mr Yordanov’s detention in Sofia Prison 49 .     Mr Yordanov was placed in Sofia Prison on 13 August 2007 in execution of a sentence of seventeen years’ imprisonment meted out by the Sofia City Court. According to him, he was not medically screened upon his arrival in prison. According to the Government, the prison’s medical journal showed that Mr Yordanov was medically examined on 13 August 2007 and found to be healthy, with no traces of violence. On 31 August 2007 Mr   Yordanov was placed under the “strict” regime. He was initially allocated to prisoner group 8, the intake unit for new prisoners. On 11   September 2007 a special commission in charge of allocating prisoners decided to place him in group 2, where he remained until his transfer to Pleven Prison several weeks later (see paragraph 51 below). 50 .     The Government submitted that on 31 August 2007 Mr Yordanov had been provided with two bed sheets, one pillow cover and two blankets. In reply, Mr Yordanov pointed out that this meant that he had had to do without these and sleep on a bare mattress for eighteen days, between 13   and 31 August 2007. He further submitted that he had not been provided with cutlery and had been forced, like the other detainees, to eat with his hands from random boxes that had come into his possession. Moreover, the prison was not equipped with enough tables and chairs, and as a result inmates had to eat sitting on their beds. The food that he was being provided was of very poor quality, often causing vomiting and diarrhoea. The Government did not contest these allegations. 2.     The conditions of Mr Yordanov’s detention in Pleven Prison 51 .     On 4 October 2007 Mr Yordanov was transferred to Pleven Prison. 52 .     The Government submitted that on 11 October 2007 he was placed in prisoner group 6. Later he was placed in group 5, which consisted of convicted criminals. On 14 August 2008, following the re-opening of the criminal proceedings against him by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 20   February 2008 and the change in his procedural situation, he was placed in group 7, for persons awaiting trial. On 1 March 2010 he was placed in group 6, also for persons awaiting trial. When his conviction and sentence by the Sofia City Court became final on 20 April 2010, Mr Yordanov was placed in group 2, for convicted persons. 53 .     Mr Yordanov submitted that following the re-opening of the proceedings against him by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 20 February 2008, he was transferred to the prison’s recidivists unit, and, in spite of his numerous complaints, was not moved from there until 2010. In support of this assertion he pointed out that two researches retained by his legal representative in these proceedings had visited Pleven Prison on 24   September 2014 and spoken with the prison’s deputy governor, who had said that there were currently no records on the allocation of prisoners in 2007-10. Both he and members of the prison staff had explained that at that time all prisoners without final convictions and sentences had been placed on the prison’s fourth floor, where their cells were separated by mere iron grills allowing free contacts between all inmates. 54 .     When Mr Yordanov was transferred to Pleven Prison, the cells there were not equipped with in-cell toilets or running water. According to the Government, such toilets were installed on 1 September 2008. Thus, after the locking of his cell at about 8 p.m. each evening, he was forced to relieve himself in a bucket. According to a declaration by another inmate, the cells remained locked between 8.30 p.m. and 5.30 a.m. or 5.45 a.m. during weekdays and 6.30 a.m. on weekends. The cells were left unlocked until late at night, allowing access to the common toilets, only at times of epidemics of intestinal disorders in the prison. Initially, Mr Yordanov had been placed in a cell measuring 9.5 by 5.2 metres that he had shared with fifteen to twenty-two other inmates. After Christmas 2007 he had been placed in a cell measuring 5 by 4 metres that he had shared with five or six other inmates. Both cells had been equipped with one bucket of about ten litres. 55 .     The Government conceded that in 2007 Pleven Prison had been overcrowded. The total floor space of the prison building was 984.02 square metres. In 2007, it was occupied by six hundred and seven prisoners; in 2008, by four hundred and forty-four prisoners; in 2009, by three hundred and eighty-seven prisoners; and in 2010, by five hundred and one prisoners. The surface of the fourth floor, where Mr Yordanov was kept, was 149.88 square metres. In 2007, it was occupied by seventy-six prisoners; in 2008, by fifty-six prisoners; in 2009, by forty-two prisoners; and in 2010, by thirty-six prisoners. The Government nevertheless submitted that at that time conditions in this prison had been fully compliant with the applicable legal framework and pointed out that, while Mr Yordanov had filed six complaints with the prison authorities, he had not complained in terms of the conditions of his detention there. In reply, Mr Yordanov said that he had not made such complaints because conditions in the prison had been the same for all prisoners, but that, as evident from a complaint that he had filed on 19 January 2010, he had sought a transfer to Vratsa Prison precisely because of the poor conditions in Pleven Prison. That transfer request had been denied by the prison authorities. 3.     The conditions of Mr Yordanov’s detention in Lovech Prison 56 .     On 22 July 2010 Mr Yordanov was transferred to Lovech Prison. He was initially placed in prisoner group 3, and then in prisoner groups 2, 10 and 1. 57 .     Mr Yordanov alleged that the conditions of his detention in this prison were as poor as in the previous two prisons. He said that in winter heating had been turned on only twice a day for about twenty minutes. As a result of that and of the fact that the windows did not close properly, the temperature in the cell never went above 14 degrees Celsius. The Government submitted that the heating boilers in Lovech Prison had been fired twice a day, for about two and a half to four hours. If Mr Yordanov had had a problem with the window in his cell, he should have brought that to the attention of the responsible prison officials, who would have taken steps to tackle it. Mr Yordanov retorted that, while he could not say for how long the boilers had been fired each day, the amount of time during which the radiators in his cell had been warm was a mere twenty minutes. 58 .     Mr Yordanov also submitted that he had worked in the prison’s workshop, which was not properly heated in winter either. The Government submitted that the workshop had been heated with wood-burning stoves, and when necessary also with electrical heaters. 59 .     Mr Yordanov further submitted that the toilets had been very dirty. The Government submitted that it was the inmates’ duty to keep the premises clean, and that the prison authorities provided them with cleaning products for that. Mr Yordanov retorted that, in view of the small amounts and the low quality of the cleaning products provided by the prison authorities, it had not been possible properly to clean the toilets. 60 .     Mr Yordanov alleged that inmates who had spent less than three years in prison had no health insurance, and as a result did not get proper medical treatment. He said that as a result of the poor conditions of his detention he was suffering from chronic colitis and periodontitis, and had lost four teeth. The Government submitted that, while in Lovech Prison, Mr   Yordanov had visited a dentist twice, on 30 July 2010, when he had had a tooth extracted in order to treat his periodontitis, and on 21 February 2011, when he had been prescribed medication for bleeding in the gums. Mr   Yordanov retorted that although he had not been health insured during his stay in Pleven Prison, the resident dentist there had provided him with the necessary medication free of charge. However, in Lovech Prison, despite being already health insured, he was not provided with medication free of charge, and experienced great difficulties in obtaining that medication. 4.     The conditions of Mr Yordanov’s detention in the prison hostel in Troyan 61 .     On 21 January 2012 Mr Yordanov was transferred to Atlant Prison Hostel, a closed-type prison hostel in Troyan attached to Lovech Prison. He complained of overcrowding and said that the conditions there were similar to these in the prisons in which he had been housed before that. According to two declarations by other inmates submitted by Mr Yordanov, in 2013 and 2014 he was kept in a cell measuring 62.8 square metres together with between fourteen and twenty-two inmates. The cell had ten bunk beds and a toilet in the corner, all of which further reduced the amount of living space. The Government submitted that Atlant Prison Hostel was one of the best heated prison hostels in the country and that the temperature in the living quarters was always adequate. An inmate was designated as responsible for the heating central and took constant care of it, even remaining there overnight. 5.     Cases that appear to have been brought by Mr Yordanov in relation to the conditions of his detention 62 .     In late 2010 Mr Yordanov brought a claim under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraph 125 below) in relation to the conditions of his detention in Sofia Prison earlier that month. He sought BGN 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages. In a judgment of 10 April 2012 (реш. № 1997 от 10 април 2012 г. по адм. д. №   9619/2010 г., АС-София град) the Sofia City Administrative Court found that the conditions of Mr Yordanov’s confinement in Sofia Prison between 15 and 17 December 2010 – lack of glazing on the windows during a very cold winter period, poor hygiene, and lack of proper separation between the in-cell toilet and the rest of the cell – did not meet the minimum standards laid down in the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 and the regulations for its application (see   paragraphs   107-120 below). The court also had regard to Article 3 of the Convention. Taking however into account the small amount of time – less than forty-eight hours – that Mr Yordanov had spent in these conditions, the court decided to award him BGN 100. The Chief Directorate for the Execution of Punishments appealed, and in a judgment of 4 April 2013 (реш. № 4688 от 4 април 2013 г. по адм. д. № 7759/2012 г., ВАС, III о.) the Supreme Administrative Court fully upheld the lower court’s judgment. 63 .     On 13 April 2011 Mr Yordanov brought another claim under section   1 of the 1988 Act (see paragraph 125 below) in relation to the conditions of his detention in a transfer cell in Sofia Prison on 3-7 April 2011 and the failure of the prison authorities to provide him a hot meal on   7-8 April 2011. He sought BGN 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages in relation to the stress endured by him on account of the poor conditions in the cell, BGN 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages in relation to the fact that the cell had been infested with rats, and BGN 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages in relation to the failure to provide him with a hot meal. In a judgment of 1   April 2013 (реш. № 2146 от 1 април 2013 г., по адм. д. № 3060/2011 г., АС-София-град) the Sofia City Administrative Court, having