CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .sFD5071EE { width:207.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 2888/10 Valentina Georgieva ALEKSANDROVA against Bulgaria and two other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1   June   2017 as a Committee composed of:   Nona Tsotsoria, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Latif Huseynov, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The list of the applicants and the relevant details of their applications are set out in the appended table. 2.     The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the allegedly inadequate conditions of the applicants’ detention and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 3.     In view of the similar subject matter of the applications, it is appropriate to examine them jointly. B.     Complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect) 4.     The Court, having examined all the material before it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, considers that the applicants’ complaints are inadmissible since the conditions of their detention did not exceed the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and did not reach the threshold of severity required under Article 3 of the Convention. 5.     In particular, in application no. 2888/10 the applicant complained that she had been placed with inmates suffering from schizophrenia and another unspecified mental illness, and that she had had limited access to a toilet and running water and restricted access to hot water, and that the food provided to her had been of poor quality. Assessing the cumulative effect of the conditions of her detention, the Court considers that, although the lack of sanitary facilities in the cell apparently obliged the applicant to call the guards every time she needed to use the toilet during the night, there is no evidence that her requests have ever been turned down, or that she was forced to use a bucket to relieve herself in the cell (contrast Iovchev v.   Bulgaria , no. 41211/98, §§ 28 and 134, 2 February 2006; Yordanov v.   Bulgaria , no. 56856/00, §§ 18 and 94, 10 August 2006; and Dobrev v.   Bulgaria , no. 55389/00, § 129, 10 August 2006). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the applicant was placed in a cell with violent or dangerous inmates who could endanger her. The Court does not therefore find that the conditions of her detention in Sliven Prison amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. 6.     As regards application no. 52546/11, taking into consideration the Government’s submissions, the Court finds that on two occasions the applicant was hospitalised and that the actual period that he spent in the Veliko Tarnovo Investigation Detention Facility was thus about four months. The Court also notes that in the domestic proceedings for damages brought by the applicant, the courts found that although his cell had not been equipped with a sanitary facility, there was no evidence that he had been forced to use a bottle or a bucket to relieve himself in the cell, or prevented from going to the toilet any time that he wished. The courts went on to find that the bed sheets in the facility had been changed every week; that all cells had windows, and that the inmates had had access to natural light. They also dismissed the allegations that smokers and non-smokers had not been kept apart. The Court finds no reason to doubt the correctness of those findings. Having regard to the overall conditions in which the applicant was kept in the Veliko Tarnovo Investigation Detention Facility, it concludes that the distress and hardship that the applicant endured during his stay there did not reach the threshold of severity required under Article 3 of the Convention. 7.     With regard to application no. 5160/14, the Court notes that there is no evidence that the applicant has suffered from overcrowding during her stay in Sliven Prison, whereas the mere use of bunk beds does not raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention. Nor is there evidence that her requests to use the toilet at night have ever been turned down, or that she was forced to use a bucket to relieve herself in her cell (see Ivanova ‑ Sokolova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 26057/04, 29 April 2008). Accordingly, the Court does not consider that the conditions of her detention in Sliven Prison were so poor as to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. 8.     In view of these considerations, the Court finds that the complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. 9.     As regards the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court refers to its findings above that the applicants’ complaints under Article   3 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded. They are therefore not “arguable” for the purposes of Article 13 (see, among many other authorities, Narcisio v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47810/99, 27   January 2005). 10.     It follows that these complaints are incompatible ratione materiae and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 22 June 2017.   Karen Reid   Nona Tsotsoria   Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth/Date of registration   Representative name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances     2888/10 19/11/2009 Valentina Georgieva Aleksandrova 18/01/1952     Sliven Prison 30/10/1998 pending More than 18   year(s) and 5   month(s) and 28   day(s)         access to hot water provided for some 10 minutes in the evening, poor quality of food prepared in unhygienic conditions. The applicant further complains about being placed in the same cell with an inmate suffering from schizophrenia and another inmate attained by an unspecified mental illness.       52546/11 10/08/2011 Mitko Mihaylov Krastev 22/01/1948     Veliko Tarnovo Investigation Detention Facility 26/11/2005 to 19/12/2005 24 day(s)   Veliko Tarnovo Investigation Detention Facility 27/01/2006 to 10/02/2006 15 day(s)   Veliko Tarnovo Investigation Detention Facility 22/02/2006 to 02/05/2006 2 month(s) and 11   day(s)                 Cell in a bad state of repair, dirty, humid and infested with cockroaches, inadequate ventilation, filthy and worn-out mattresses and blankets, no direct access to natural light, insufficient artificial lighting, no integral sanitation in the cells, limited access to a toilet (the applicant had to resort to plastic bottles or bucket in the cell), access to showers only once a week, no laundry facilities (the applicant washed his clothes and bed linen himself and dried them in the corridor), lack of segregation between smokers and non-smokers.               5160/14 27/12/2013 Rositsa Stoyanova Velinova 13/09/1958     Sliven Prison 11/12/2001 pending More than 15   year(s) and 4   month(s) and 17   day(s)         Bunk beds, limited access to toilet and running water for the period between 8 p.m. and 5.30 a.m., when the applicant had to use a plastic bucket for her sanitary needs.