CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 19 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 41511/20 Deyan Kirilov VASILEV against Bulgaria lodged on 15 September 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings into allegations that the applicant’s minor son had been sexually harassed. In the context of the preliminary investigation stage the applicant was detained for 24 hours, he was questioned as a witness, and was subject to several biological examinations, as well as to a polygraph test. The proceedings started on 27   October 2014 and were still ongoing by the time the present application was submitted to the Court on 15 September 2020. The applicant brought a claim against the prosecuting authorities for non-pecuniary damages for the alleged unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings under section 2b of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act. In a final judgment of 16 March 2020 the Veliko Tarnovo Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on account of the lack of formal charges brought against him.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 §   1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In particular, was the combined effect of the authorities’ actions against the applicant such as to render his situation “substantially affected”, in order for him to be considered as a person “charged with a criminal offence” within the autonomous meaning of Article 6 (see, for instance, Deweer v. Belgium , 27   February 1980, §§ 42-46, Series A no. 35, Eckle v. Germany , 15 July 1982, § 73, Series   A no. 5, Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, §§   110-11, 12 May 2017)? If so, was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, Eckle , cited above, § 80, Osmanov and Yuseinov v.   Bulgaria , nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, § 26, 23 September 2004, Vachev v. Bulgaria , no.   42987/98, § 85, ECHR 2004 ‑ VIII (extracts))?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?