CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juillet 2019

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 5 July 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 1009/12 Stoyan Trayanov KRASTEV against Bulgaria lodged on 12 December 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Stoyan Trayanov Krastev, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Pernik. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Stoyanov, a lawyer practising in Blagoevgrad. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was serving a three-year prison sentence under the “general prison regime” in an open-type prison hostel when, on 12 August 2009, the director of the Chief Directorate for Execution of Sentences ordered his isolation in a solitary confinement cell for the period of 14 days as a punishment for having gotten into a brawl with another inmate. The applicant served that punishment between 13 and 30 August 2009. He challenged in court the order placing him in isolation and the Sofia District Court quashed the order as unlawful in a final decision of 3 September 2009. Thereafter, the applicant sought compensation under section 1(1) of the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act in respect of his unlawful isolation. His related claim was rejected on the merits. The courts found in particular that the applicant had not demonstrated that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of his placement in the isolation cell. The final decision was taken by the Supreme Administrative Court on 13 June 2011. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention about the courts having dismissed his claim for compensation for his unlawful detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s confinement in an isolation cell in the period between 13 and 30 August 2009 constitute deprivation of his liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Schneiter v.   Switzerland , (dec.), no. 63062/00, 31 March 2005, and Gulub Atanasov v.   Bulgaria , no. 73281/01, § 65, 6 November 2008?   2.     Was there a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention as a result of the applicant’s inability to obtain compensation for his unlawful detention in the isolation cell as established by the national court (see Dzhabarov and   Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 6095/11 and 2 others, §§ 84-86, 31 March 2016)?