CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 janvier 2016

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt }     Communicated on 26 January 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 67608/11 Ventsislav Petrov SHALYAVSKI and others against Bulgaria lodged on 7 October 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Ventsislav Petrov Shalyavski, Ms Silvia Nikolova Kotseva, Mr Martin Nedyalkov Kotsev and Ms Yoana Ventsislavova Shalyavska, are Bulgarian citizens who were born in 1966, 1967, 1988 and 2003 respectively and live in Blagoevgrad. They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekindzhiev, Ms K. Boncheva and Ms S. Stefanova, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants are a family and live together. The first applicant suffers from muscular dystrophy and is only able to move his head and hands. In 2010 the prosecution authorities opened against him criminal proceedings for usury. 1.     The circumstances of the first applicant’s arrest On 7 April 2011, at about 11 a.m., the first applicant, travelling in his car, was stopped by police officers and ordered to follow them to the police station. Upon arrival, his driver, who was also his personal assistant, was arrested. The first applicant, unable to get down from the car, remained in it, immobilised. He was guarded by two police officers. At about 3 p.m. his assistant was brought to move him to another car, because the first one was going to be impounded as physical evidence. The first applicant remained immobilised in the second car until about 7.30 p.m. On several occasions during that time the second applicant was brought to help him with his physical needs. In the car the first applicant had charges brought against him. After that he was brought in front of the building of the Blagoevgrad Regional Court which was to hold a hearing to examine the prosecution’s request to place him under house arrest; once again he had to wait for the arrival of his personal assistant, who was still being held at the police station. The first applicant was finally able to get down from the car at about 9.30 p.m. He was brought for the court hearing, which ended at 11.30 p.m. The prosecution’s request to have him placed under house arrest was allowed. 2.     The police visits to the applicants’ home The first applicant’s house arrest continued until 21 June 2011. On numerous occasions during this period police officers visited him to check whether he was at home. In the first weeks the visits were carried out twice a day, and after that – many times a day. According to the applicants’ statements, between 1 May and 21 June 2011 there were 176 visits and there were days where the officers visited their home up to five times. The checks were usually effectuated by two or three officers. The applicants state that the first applicant’s grave state of health rendered the police’s visits even more burdensome for them, as they had to ensure that at all times there was someone in the flat to open the door and let the officers in, because each time the offices had to enter the flat to check upon the first applicant in the room where he was, and also because the first applicant was often found in a state which embarrassed him. Many of the visits were carried out in the presence of the fourth applicant, then eight years old. In its decision ordering the first applicant’s release, given on 21 June 2011, the Sofia Court of Appeal commented on this situation, finding it “disturbing”, even more so in view of the fact that the first applicant’s state of health did not allow him to leave his home without others’ aid, and seeing that he had strictly complied with the restrictions imposed on him. In the domestic court’s view, the police’s actions amounted to “unjustified and deliberate” humiliation. COMPLAINTS 1.     The first applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the circumstances of his arrest on 7 April 2011 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 2.     He also complains under Article 3, and all applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention, of the frequent police visits to their home during the first applicant’s house arrest. 3.     The applicants also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 8.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the first applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in view of the manner in which his arrest was carried out on 7 April 2011? Do the circumstances of the arrest also reveal a violation of Article 8 of the Convention? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ rights to respect for their private life and their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary and otherwise in compliance with Article 8 § 2? 3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaints under Article 3 and Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?