CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 octobre 2021

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sF6AA50AA { width:13.46%; 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 } .s40511C21 { width:23%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s482F300A { width:19.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s59953F28 { width:43.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s71EE430C { width:13.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s689F3948 { width:23%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E737B3C { width:19.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s70997A7A { width:43.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 41062/20 Maria Bozhidarova TERZIYSKA against Bulgaria (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7   October 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the above application lodged on 9 September 2020; and the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions of her detention and the alleged lack of an effective remedy in that respect. THE LAW The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in which they acknowledged the violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, and offered to pay the applicant the amount set out in the appended table. On that basis, they invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within that three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the case. A copy of that declaration was sent to the applicant on 27 July 2021, and she was invited to submit her comments on it by 24 August 2021. The Court has not received a response from her. Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention enables the Court to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. Thus, the Court may strike out an application under that provision on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court already has clear and extensive case-law under Articles 3 and   13 of the Convention in relation to allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions of detention and the domestic remedies required in respect of that (see, for example, Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and   5   others, 27 January 2015). Noting the admissions in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention). In the light of the above considerations, the Court is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, if the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the Court’s list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the Court’s list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings to which it refers; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 October 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions of detention and alleged lack of an effective remedy in that respect) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Amount offered for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros) [1] 41062/20 09/09/2020 Maria Bozhidarova TERZIYSKA 1970 12/07/2021 1,000   [1]     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant