CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBA366A80 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0072bc } .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 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s1CBBD6E0 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3A71F16B { width:17.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF32B1133 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   Communicated on 20 March 2014   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 36925/10, 9717/13, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12 and 77718/12 Svetlomir Nikolov NESHKOV against Bulgaria, Georgi Ivanov TSEKOV against Bulgaria, Pavel Enchev SIMEONOV against Bulgaria, Yordan Kolev YORDANOV against Bulgaria and Ivan Ivanov ZLATEV against Bulgaria STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     Applications nos. 36925/10 and 9717/13 were lodged on 18 June 2010 and 27 December 2012 respectively by Mr Svetlomir Nikolov Neshkov, a Bulgarian national born in 1971 and currently detained in Vratsa Prison. 2.     Application no. 21487/12 was lodged on 16 March 2012 by Mr   Georgi Ivanov Tsekov, a Bulgarian national born in 1973 and currently detained in Burgas Prison. 3.     Application no. 72893/12 was lodged on 5 November 2012 by Mr   Pavel Enchev Simeonov, a Bulgarian national born in 1976 and currently detained in Burgas Prison. 4.     Application no. 73196/12 was lodged on 7 November 2012 by Mr   Yordan Kolev Yordanov, a Bulgarian national born in 1962 and currently detained in a closed-type prison hostel in Troyan attached to Lovech Prison. 5.     Application no. 77718/12 was lodged on 16 October 2012 by Mr Ivan Ivanov Zlatev, a Bulgarian national born in 1965 and currently detained in Burgas Prison. A.     The circumstances of the case 6.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and established by the Court at this stage of the proceedings on the basis of material obtained of its own motion, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The case of Mr Neshkov 7 .     Mr Neshkov has apparently been incarcerated since 2002 and is serving a combined sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment. From June 2002 until June 2005 he was housed in Varna Prison. He 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. 8 .     In June 2005 Mr Neshkov was transferred to Lovech Prison, and then in October 2006 to Vratsa Prison. He does not provide any information about the conditions in those prisons. 9 .     Between 2002 and 2008 Mr Neshkov spent short periods of time in Stara Zagora Prison on a number of occasions in connection with court hearings. (a)     The claim for damages in relation to the conditions in Stara Zagora Prison 10 .     On 8 August 2008 Mr Neshkov brought a claim under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraph   102 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. On 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. 11 .     At the request of Mr Neshkov, the Stara Zagora Administrative Court ordered the administration of Stara Zagora Prison to provide information about Mr Neshkov’s stays in that prison between 10 October 2002 and 25 February 2008 and about the conditions in which he had been kept in the course of those stays. The prison administration was able to provide such information only in relation to 2007. It said that the records concerning short-term stays of prisoners normally housed in other prisons were not kept for more than a year. 12 .     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 be established only for 2007, because the prison’s records for the remaining years had not been preserved. In 2007, Mr Neshkov had been housed in that prison on five separate 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 those 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 overcrowding, 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 any non-pecuniary harm as a result of those conditions. It also had to be borne in mind that he had only spent short periods of time in those cells. Whereas 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. 13 .     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 of non-pecuniary damage. 14 .     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. (b)     The claim for damages in relation to the conditions in Varna Prison 15 .     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 102 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. 16.     Mr Neshkov requested to be exempted from paying a court fee. On 28 April 2009 the Varna Administrative Court turned down 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. 17.     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 actions 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. 18.     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 turned down his request, citing the same reason as previously: that the declaration of means that Mr Neshkov had presented was not sufficient to elucidate his and his family’s financial situation and show that he was indeed indigent. Mr Neshkov appealed against that 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. 19.     In the meantime, on 29 September 2009 the Varna Administrative Court decided to strike one of Mr Neshkov’s witnesses off. It found that that 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 transferred 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 that witness’ testimony. 20.     Following further applications by Mr Neshkov, on 17 March 2010 the court refused to vary its earlier evidentiary rulings. 21.     At a hearing on 9 April 2010 Mr Neshkov requested the judge hearing the case to recuse herself, citing her rulings in relation to the evidence. She refused to do so, saying that those 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. 22 .     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 those 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 was incarcerated pursuant to more than two sentences, he had been placed under a prison regime entailing heightened security. 23 .     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 appointed a medical expert even of its own motion. Its failure to do 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 basic constitutional right of access to an independent court. The lower court had in addition failed to rule expressly and 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. 24.     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 in Lovech Prison. 25 .     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. That 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 that cell, on 19 August 2002 the prison administration had moved him to cell no. 24, where he had remained alone. That cell had not had a ventilation system or direct access to sunlight, because its window had been blocked with a metal sheet. It had not had a toilet or any furniture apart from a bed. During his time in that cell – about two months – Mr Neshkov had not always been allowed to use the half-an-hour out-of-cell time allowed 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. That cell’s window had been covered with a perforated metal sheet. The court said that the evidence presented by Mr Neshkov – a witness statement – did not enable it to make any findings of fact with respect to the period after 19 August 2003. 26 .     Based on those 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 actions or omissions on the part of the prison authorities or harm suffered by Mr Neshkov as a result of that. 27.     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. 28 .     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 right to hold that the latest date on which prison officials were proved to have carried out the impugned actions 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 right to hold that this was the point in time when the impugned actions and omissions of the [prison] administration came to an end. ... [T]he five-year limitation period [therefore] started to run on that date and expired on 19 August 2008. In those circumstances, and given that the statement of claim was lodged on 24 April 2009, it was correct to hold that, regardless of the veracity or otherwise of the factual allegations about the period from 7 June 2002 until 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 actions 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.” 2.     The case of Mr Tsekov 29 .     On an unspecified date Mr Tsekov entered Burgas Prison to serve a sentence of imprisonment. It appears that he is still detained there. 30 .     Mr Tsekov alleges that the cell in which he is being kept (either cell no. 317 or cell no. 309 on the third floor) measures about four by five or six metres and houses between fourteen and twenty-two inmates, who sleep on triple bunk beds. The cell has two windows close to the ceiling, one metre by fifty centimetres each, which allegedly do not allow direct sunlight into the cell or its proper ventilation. Since there are no cells for non-smokers, Mr   Tsekov has to share the cell with smokers, which he alleges is particularly problematic for him in view of the lack of ventilation. There are four or five television sets in the cell which show different programmes. 31 .     According to Mr Tsekov, there is no running water or toilet in the cell, and inmates have to use a bucket to relieve themselves at night, when the cell is locked. Mr Tsekov’s floor has only four Asian-type toilets without running water for the approximately two hundred and ten inmates who are housed on that floor, and only two or three showers, which often do not function (and, when they function, have hot water only twice a week for four hours); as a result, inmates have to use small cans to bathe themselves. 32 .     According to Mr Tsekov, the prison canteen measures about four or five by fifteen metres and accommodates eighty people at the same time, which causes severe overcrowding and discomfort while eating. The quality of the food is very poor, and outside food parcels do not compensate for that, especially since there are no refrigerators in which to store them. 33 .     Mr Tsekov alleges that there is no place in the prison for self ‑ cooking, sports or cinema. 34 .     Lastly, Mr Tsekov, who apparently has no health insurance, claims that health care in the prison is inadequate, with no qualified doctors but only a feldsher working on site, and no provision of medicines free of charge. 3.     The case of Mr Simeonov 35 .     On an unspecified date Mr Simeonov entered Burgas Prison, where he is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment. 36 .     Mr Simeonov alleges that the cell in which he is being kept (cell no.   309 om the third floor) measures about twenty square metres and houses fifteen inmates. There is 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 remains locked, the inmates have to use buckets to relieve their needs. There are four toilets on the floor but access to them is limited as they are used by about two hundred inmates. 37 .     Mr Simeonov says that he is allowed to take a shower twice a week, between 1.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. However, the bathroom, which measures six square metres, features only one shower and two sinks and usually the inmates use small cans to pour water on themselves. The size of the bathroom and the time allowed for showering make it impossible for all two hundred inmates who use the bathroom to shower properly. Immediately adjacent to the bathroom are the two litter containers for the entire floor. 38 .     According to Mr Simeonov, many inmates suffer from tuberculosis as a result of the poor hygienic conditions in the prison. He does not however allege that he has himself contracted the disease. 39 .     Mr Simeonov also complains that telephone calls made from prison are expensive, that the food shop in the prison is overpriced, and that health care in the prison is inadequate. 4.     The case of Mr Yordanov (a)     Mr Yordanov’s account of the conditions of his detention 40.     Mr Yordanov submits that has been detained in Bulgaria since 2007, following his extradition from Hungary. He is serving a ten-year sentence of imprisonment. He was transferred from one prison to another several times. He claims that the conditions of his detention in all prisons were similar, their common features being overcrowding, with less than four square metres of floor space per prisoner, poor hygiene, and severe restrictions on parcels and visits. 41.     Mr Yordanov submits that initially he was detained at Sofia Prison. He was not subjected to medical screening upon his arrival there. He says that he was not given cutlery and bed sheets and had to sleep on a bare mattress. He could not obtain them even after complaining to the prison inspector. He also complains of the poor hygiene in that prison and the low quality of the food. Inmates had to eat in the cells and, since they were not given plates, had to eat from boxes. 42.     Mr Yordanov submits that he was later transferred to Pleven Prison. He complains that the cell there was overcrowded, with no running water or toilet. After 8 p.m. the inmates were locked in their cells with no access to the toilet, and had to relieve themselves in buckets. Mr Yordanov was allowed to shower once a week, for about fifteen to twenty minutes, together with fifteen to twenty other inmates, in the three showers installed on his floor. Mr Yordanov also alleges that the quality of the food was poor. 43.     Following the quashing of his conviction on 20 February 2008 by the Supreme Court of Cassation and the remittal of his case, Mr Yordanov was transferred to the prison’s recidivists unit, and, in spite of his numerous complaints, was not moved from there until 2010. 44.     In the summer of 2010 Mr Yordanov was transferred to Lovech Prison. He claims that the conditions of his detention there were as poor as in the previous two prisons. He says that in winter the heating was being 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. Mr Yordanov further submits that the toilets were very dirty. He worked in the prison’s workshop, and claims that the working conditions were poor and that the workshop was not properly heated in winter. Mr Yordanov also says that the prison food shop was overpriced. 45.     On an unspecified date Mr Yordanov was transferred to a closed ‑ type prison hostel in Troyan that is attached to Lovech Prison. He complains of overcrowding and says that the conditions there are similar to those in the prisons in which he was housed before that. 46 .     Lastly, Mr Yordanov alleges that inmates who have spent less than three years in prison have no health insurance, and as a result do not get proper medical treatment. He says that as a result of the poor conditions of his detention he is suffering from chronic colitis and periodontitis, and has lost four teeth. (b)     Cases that appear to have been brought by Mr Yordanov in relation to the conditions of his detention 47 .     In late 2010 Mr Yordanov brought a claim under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraph 102 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 glass 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   86-94 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 those 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. 48 .     On 13 April 2011 Mr Yordanov brought a claim under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraph   102 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 regard to, inter alia , Article 3 of the Convention, found that the poor conditions in the cell in which Mr   Yordanov had been kept, the presence of rats in that cell, and the lack of proper food had caused him non-pecuniary damage. The court awarded Mr   Yordanov BGN 100 in respect of the first head of claim, BGN 300 in respect of the second head of claim, and BGN 100 in respect of the third head of claim. In a judgment of 17 January 2014 (реш. № 619 от 17 януари 2014 г. по адм. д. № 9147/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court quashed that judgment and partly dismissed the claim and partly remitted the case. It held, by reference to this Court’s judgment in Shahanov v. Bulgaria (no. 16391/05, 10 January 2012), that the lower court had erred by dealing with the first and second heads of claim separately. The proper approach was to analyse them in combination and to focus on their cumulative effect on the inmate’s well-being. That part of the case was therefore to be remitted. The head of claim concerning the failure to provide Mr Yordanov with a hot meal was, for its part, unfounded, because there was evidence that he had been provided with a sufficiently calorific food package instead. The proceedings on remittal are apparently still pending. 49 .     In 2012 Mr Yordanov brought a claim under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraph 102 below) in relation to the conditions of his detention in Stara Zagora Prison, through which he had been transferred on 21 and 22 May 2012. He alleged that there he had been subjected to ill-treatment because he had at first been put for about an hour together with fifteen other inmates in a cell measuring two by two metres, and then moved to a cell measuring two and a half by two and a half metres, which he had had to share with three other inmates. That cell had had no running water, toilet or proper access to light and air. In a judgment of 11 March 2013 (реш. № 92 от 11 март 2013 г. по адм. д. №   800/2012 г., АС-Велико Търново) the Veliko Tarnovo Administrative Court dismissed the claim, noting that section 43(3) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009, which laid down a minimum requirement of four square metres of floor space per prisoner, as well as regulation 20(3) of the regulations for the application of that Act, which made the availability of in-cell toilets and running water mandatory, had not yet come into force (see paragraphs 89, 92 and 93 below). The prison authorities had therefore not acted unlawfully by putting Mr   Yordanov in the two cells. Mr Yordanov appealed. In a judgment of 17   February 2014 (реш. № 2204 от 17 февруари 2014 г. адм. д. №   5584/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted the case. It noted that the lower court had constituted as a co-defendant the administration of Stara Zagora Prison, which could not be a proper defendant to a claim under section 1 of the 1988 Act. Its judgment was therefore inadmissible. The proceedings on remittal are apparently still pending. 5.     The case of Mr Zlatev 50 .     Since 25 April 2002 Mr Zlatev has been detained in Burgas Prison in execution of a fourteen-year sentence of imprisonment. 51 .     It appears that in the 1980s Mr Zlatev’s left wrist was amputated following a trauma. Since 1983 he has been suffering from bronchial asthma. Since his incarceration he has been admitted to the prison hospital in Lovech for treatment of his asthma at least seven times, the latest apparently being in May-June 2011. 52 .     Mr Zlatev complains of overcrowding and says that his cell measures fifteen square metres and houses twenty inmates. He alleges that there is insufficient light in the cell and that the inmates have to use buckets to relieve their needs at night. He also submits that there are only four Asian-type toilets, two sinks and one shower on his floor, for one hundred and seventy-seven inmates. 53 .     Mr Zlatev also complains of the allegedly very poor hygiene in the prison canteen. According to him, as a result inmates routinely suffer from stomach and intestinal infections. B.     Relevant reports on the conditions in Bulgarian prisons 1.     Relevant reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (a)     Report on the September 2006 visit 54 .     A delegation of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) visited Bulgaria from 10 to 21 September 2006. In its ensuing report ( CPT/Inf (2008) 11 ), published on 28 February 2008, the CPT noted the following in relation to, in particular, overcrowding in Pleven Prison (footnotes omitted): “63.     Prison overcrowding in Bulgaria remains a matter of serious concern. At the time of the 2006 visit, the total number of prisoners stood at around 11,500 whereas the maximum official capacity (calculated on the basis of 6 m² of living space per prisoner) was 5,828. According to statistics provided by the General Directorate for the Execution of Sentences, overcrowding in the prison system averaged 197% and in some prisons (e.g. Burgas and Pleven) it surpassed 300%.” (b)     Report on the October 2010 visit 55 .     A delegation of the CPT visited Bulgaria from 18 to 29 October 2010. In its ensuing report ( CPT/Inf (2012) 9 ), published on 15 March 2012, the CPT noted the following in relation to, in particular, Burgas and Varna Prisons (footnotes, save for footnote 26, omitted): “106.     ... Varna Prison is an establishment for adult men (on remand and sentenced), comprising a closed prison and two open-type prison hostels. The building of the closed prison was constructed in the late 1920s in what were at the time the outskirts of Varna and is now one of the residential areas of the city. With a capacity of 350 places, on the first day of the visit the closed prison was holding 528 prisoners, of whom 82 were on remand and the remainder were sentenced (including 18   life ‑ sentenced prisoners). ... 107.     In the closed prison, prisoner accommodation was provided in a cross-shaped building on three levels, with three of the wings containing a total of some 70 cells of varying sizes and the fourth wing being occupied by the medical centre, cinema hall and visiting rooms. Inmates were distributed into nine groups according to legal criteria and regime[: [o]n the ground floor, Group 1 (sentenced prisoners with health problems and working prisoners), Group 2 (sentenced working prisoners) and Group 3 (lifers and other prisoners under special regime). On the first floor, Group 4 (admission unit and prisoners on remand), and Groups 5 and 6 (remand prisoners). On the second floor, Groups 7, 8 and 9 (sentenced prisoners).]. The situation was marked by extreme overcrowding, which exacerbated the already problematic material conditions of an obsolete building constructed 80 years previously and had negative repercussions for all other aspects of life. In most cells, the space available per prisoner was at best around 2 m² and was on occasion little more than 1 m² per person. The worst conditions were observed on the top level of the building (Groups 8 and 9). The cells were packed with two or three-tier bunk beds, the distance between the third level of the beds and the ceiling being only some 50 cm. In the larger cells, prisoners had hung blankets around the beds in order to create some privacy; as a result, the cells looked like a labyrinth of screened-off areas, which made control by staff difficult. Further, access to natural light and ventilation were problematic because of the overcrowding and the related effects. Due to the lack of financing, no major refurbishment had been carried out for years, and the building was very dilapidated (walls damaged by dampness, broken floor surfaces, missing window panes, faulty electrical wiring). With the exception of a few cells (e.g. those accommodating working prisoners in Groups 1 and 2), the general hygiene was poor and prisoners complained about infestation with cockroaches and other vermin. Further, the state of the beds and bedding was far from adequate, and the delegation noted that a few prisoners had no mattress and bed linen. 108.     One of the three accommodation wings, that holding Groups 2, 5 and 8, had had in-cell sanitation (a WC and sink) installed a few years previously. However, the partitioning – there was a only a low wall on one side of the WC – was clearly inadequate. The remainder of the cells had no integral sanitation . During the day, prisoners could circulate around their units and access to a toilet was not a problem (each unit had a common sanitary facility). However, at night, low staffing levels resulted in failure to provide access to toilets, and prisoners relied on buckets inside their cells. Further, in the admission unit, prisoners were locked up in their cells and were reportedly taken out to the toilet only three times a day. It should also be noted that the common sanitary facilities were dilapidated, dirty and insufficient for the numbers held (e.g. in Group 1, there was one toilet and two sinks for some 60 inmates; in Group 7, two toilets and three sinks for some 100 prisoners). 109.     Prisoners could take a shower once a week (and those who worked on a daily basis). The bathroom, located in the basement of the building, was dark and dilapidated (broken window panes, missing sprinklers, damaged walls and floor surfaces). As at Plovdiv Prison, there was no centralised provision of sanitary items other than soap. The prison laundry had limited and obsolete equipment (two washing and two drying machines), and prisoners were obliged to wash and dry their clothes in the cells. 110.     The accumulation of the above-mentioned negative factors (extreme overcrowding, problematic access to the toilet, unhygienic conditions) could easily lead to a situation amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Director of Varna Prison informed the delegation that a plot of land had been found for a new prison, but there were no plans to start construction due to the lack of funding. As previously mentioned, the new Law on the Implementation of Sentences and Preliminary Detention provides for a minimum of 4 m² of living space per prisoner, a standard which should start to apply from 2012. Given the present state of Varna Prison and the absence of plans for its refurbishment or extension, it is difficult to see how the Bulgarian authorities can comply with this standard by the deadline set. The CPT recommends that the Bulgarian authorities do everything within their powers in order to provide a lasting solution to the problem of overcrowding at Varna Prison and the other ensuing deficiencies. Given the state of dilapidation of the building, the replacement of Varna Prison should be considered as a priority. In the meantime, the Committee recommends that steps be taken at Varna Prison to: –     remove the third tier of the bunk beds; –     ensure that each prisoner has a mattress, blankets and bed linen; –     ensure that all prisoners have ready access to the toilet and to discontinue the use of buckets; –     improve the state of the common sanitary facilities; –     provide the in-cell toilets with a full partition; –     refurbish and enlarge the prison bathroom; –     increase the frequency of showers for inmates, in the light of Rule 19.4 of the European Prison Rules; –     ensure that all inmates have access to a range of basic hygiene products and are provided with materials for cleaning the cells; –     ensure that the disinfection of the establishment’s premises is carried out in an effective manner and at suitable intervals. 111.     The delegation received many complaints about the poor quality and insufficient quantity of the food . Eggs, dairy products and fruit were rarely on the menu. Prisoners supplemented their diet through food parcels from their families and by buying foodstuffs from the prison shop. It is also striking that all products – including bread – were centrally supplied from Sofia (nearly 500 km away) on a daily basis. Meals were served in a dining room situated in the basement of the building. The CPT recommends that steps be taken to review the quality and quantity of the food provided at Varna Prison. ” (c)     Report on the May 2012 visit 56 .     A delegation of the CPT visited Bulgaria from 4 to 10 May 2012. In its ensuing report ( CPT/Inf (2012) 32 ), published on 4 December 2012, the CPT noted the following in relation to, in particular, Burgas and Varna Prisons (footnotes omitted): “2.     ... the Committee has recently received reports pointing to ever-worsening conditions in Varna Prison as well as to very poor conditions of detention in Burgas Prison, an establishment last visited by the CPT in 2002. The CPT therefore decided to visit Bulgaria in order to examine on the spot the steps taken by the authorities to implement the relevant recommendations of the Committee contained in the reports on previous visits, and in particular to examine the current treatment and conditions of detention of inmates held at Burgas and Varna Prisons. ... 6.     ... The CPT is concerned to note that, at Burgas Prison, staff tried to create an unrealistic impression by both concealing certain problems and attempting to mislead the delegation. Additionally, staff attempted to find out which prisoners the delegation had spoken to and who had provided information in relation to allegations of ill ‑ treatment. Staff even threatened a number of prisoners that it would not be in their interest to talk further with the delegation. Such action is entirely incompatible with the principle of co-operation, which lies at the heart of the Convention, as well as with the confidentiality that applies, by virtue of the Convention, to the Committee’s interviews with detained persons. ... 7.       ... the CPT is extremely concerned that little or no progress has been made as regards a number of problems highlighted in the reports on the Committee’s previous visits, e.g. as regards the treatment of prisoners by prison staff, inter-prisoner violence, prison overcrowding, health care provision for prisoners, use of restraint, material conditions, prison staff levels, discipline and segregation, and contact with the outside world. ... 10.     At the outset, the General Director of the Main Directorate of Execution of Sanctions (‘GDIN’) acknowledged that, since the last CPT visit in 2010, very little progress had been made concerning the reform of the prison system. He stated that the economic crisis had prevented the implementation of various projects and hampered the emerging efforts noted during the 2010 visit. By way of example, no major investment had been made to improve material conditions in prisons and the delegation was informed that the application of the legal requirement of 4 m² of living space per prisoner (initially delayed until 2012) is likely to be further delayed, this time, to 2019. In addition, no significant improvements had been made as regards the provision of work to prisoners. Overcrowding remains a major problem in Bulgaria’s penitentiary system, with the prison population again on the rise (9,788 at the time of the 2012 visit). The delegation observed disturbing levels of overcrowding in all sections of the two prisons visited (see paragraph 22). At the same time, it appeared, from the information provided by the authorities, that recourse to probation had remained at the same level, and that the use of early release had only slightly increased since the 2010 visit. As for the plans to build three new prisons in Bulgaria, (respectively in Burgas, Varna and Sofia), their implementation has been postponed. 11.     The CPT fully understands that the general economic situation in Bulgaria is hindering plans to upgrade and more specifically enlarge the prison estate. That said, even if economic circumstances were more favourable, the CPT doubts that providing additional accommodation would in itself offer a lasting solution to the problem of prison overcrowding. Any strategy for the sustainable reduction of the prison population must include a variety of steps to ensure that imprisonment (whether awaiting trial or following conviction) really is a measure of last resort. This implies, in the first place, an emphasis on non-custodial measures in the period before the imposition of a sentence and the availability to the judiciary, especially in less serious cases, of alternatives to custodial sentences together with an encouragement to use those options. Further, the adoption of measures to facilitate the reintegration into society of persons who have been deprived of their liberty could reduce the rate of re ‑ offending. The CPT calls upon the Bulgarian authorities to redouble their efforts to combat prison overcrowding by implementing policies designed to limit or modulate the number of persons sent to prison. In so doing, the Bulgarian authorities should be guided by Recommendation Rec(99)22 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, Recommendation Rec(2000)22 on improving the implementation of the European rules on community sanctions and measures, Recommendation Rec(2003)22 on conditional release (parole), Recommendation Rec(2006)13 on the use of remand in custody and the provision of safeguards against abuse, and Recommendation Rec(2010)1 on the Council of Europe Probation Rules. In addition, the CPT recommends that efforts be made to step up the training provided to prosecutors and judges, with a view to promoting the use of alternatives to imprisonment. 12.     The CPT is also very concerned by the lack of progress as regards prison staffing levels ; they remained totally insufficient to provide a solid foundation for improving the treatment of prisoners. In fact, the present inadequate staff levels, combined with the ever-increasing overcrowding, can have serious consequences for the overall security of the prisons and the personal security of both staff and inmates (see paragraph 52). 13.     Further, the CPT was struck by the very large number of allegations of corrupt practices by prison staff received at Burgas and Varna Prisons; its delegation gained the distinct impression that corruption was endemic at both establishments. As regards Burgas Prison in particular, the phenomenon appeared to extend to senior management. The allegations referred to prisoners being asked to pay money to prison/medical staff in order to be allowed to benefit from services provided for by law (e.g. access to medical care, transfer to a hospital, transfer to prison hostels, early release) or to be granted certain privileges (access to work for instance). Irrespective of whether each and every allegation is well-founded, the frequency, consistency and seriousness of the allegations received during the visit is a clear indication of a major problem. The CPT wishes to stress that the widespread conviction alone of the existence of a culture of corruption in a place of detention brings in its wake discrimination, violence, insecurity and, ultimately, a loss of respect for authority. The CPT calls upon the Bulgarian authorities to take decisive action to combat the phenomenon of corruption in all prisons. Prison staff and public officials associated with the prison system should be given the clear message that seeking advantages from prisoners or their relatives is not acceptable; this message should be reiterated in an appropriate form at suitable intervals. In this connection, it recommends that a comprehensive and independent inquiry be conducted into allegations of corruption in Burgas and Varna Prisons; the CPT would like to be informed of the outcome of the above ‑ mentioned inquiry and of the action taken as a result. ... 19.     The delegation received many allegations of inter-prisoner violence at both Burgas and Varna Prisons (including verbal and physical intimidation), and even witnessed itself such episodes. This was hardly surprising considering the combination of severe overcrowding and extremely low staffing levels at both establishments. Despite long-standing recommendations on this issue, the findings from the 2012 visit suggest that very little progress has been made to tackle inter-prisoner violence. The Committee must stress again that the duty of care which is owed by the prison authorities to prisoners in their charge includes the responsibility to protect them from other prisoners who might wish to cause them harm. In particular, prison staff must be alert to signs of trouble and be both resolved and properly trained