CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 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 }   Communicated on 17 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 69591/14 Stoyan Iliev KOLEV against Bulgaria lodged on 24 October 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, about the duration of his preliminary detention in the framework of criminal proceedings against him on charges of aiding and abetting in an aggravated kidnapping and murder. The detention lasted from 8 July 2009 at least until the applicant’s initial conviction on 24 June 2014 by the Burgas Regional Court. There is no information about the development of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and about his detention after that date. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In   particular, did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the applicant’s continued detention and did the competent authorities display special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant?   The Parties are invited to submit all information and documents concerning the applicant’s detention after his conviction on 24 June 2014 by the Burgas Regional Court.   2.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, could the claim for damages under section 2(1)(2) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damages Act 1988 be considered as an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?