CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF9195E13 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s35B69855 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 July 2025 THIRD SECTION Application no. 47503/21 Galina Mitrofanovna PONOMAREVA-ILIEVA against Bulgaria lodged on 17 September 2021 communicated on 27 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE   1.     On 19 March 2021 the Sofia military regional prosecutor’s office charged the applicant with espionage and with being a member of a gang engaging in espionage in favour of the Russian Federation (along with her husband, a retired Bulgarian military officer, and several acting Bulgarian military officers). It ordered the applicant’s detention for up to seventy-two hours pending her first appearance before a judge who would decide whether to place her in pre-trial detention. The applicant sought judicial review of that order, but on 21 March 2021 the Sofia Military Court dismissed her claim. 2.     On 22 March 2021 the Sofia Military Court decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. She appealed, but on 26 March 2021 the Military Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 3.     On 12 July 2021 the Sofia Military Court rejected a request for release by the applicant. On 19 July 2021 the Military Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal against that decision. 4.     On 1 March 2022 the Sofia Military Court released the applicant on bail. At the same hearing, it dismissed an objection by the applicant and her husband that, in so far as it concerned them as civilians, the case did not fall within its jurisdiction owing to this Court’s ruling in Mustafa v. Bulgaria (no.   1230/17, 28 November 2019) that when trying civilians, the Bulgarian military courts could not be seen as independent and impartial. The court noted that the jurisdiction of those courts was laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure (whose relevant provisions, unless and until repealed or declared unconstitutional, were binding on the courts), and encompassed all offences committed by military personnel, including offences committed jointly with civilians. 5.     The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the Sofia Military Court and the Military Court of Appeal, which reviewed her pre-trial detention, were not independent and impartial. She further complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that she had no enforceable right to compensation in that respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (compare Ali   Osman Özmen v. Turkey , no. 42969/04, §§ 86-88, 5 July 2016, and Kerman v. Turkey , no. 35132/05, §§ 83-84, 22 November 2016)? In   particular, could the Sofia Military Court and the Military Court of Appeal be regarded as independent and impartial in the light of the Court’s findings in   Mustafa v. Bulgaria (no. 1230/17, §§ 38-50, 28 November 2019)?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (compare Kerman , cited above, §§ 90 and 93-96)? In particular, did the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation in respect of the alleged breach of Article 5 § 4 (see Ivan Todorov v. Bulgaria , no. 71545/11, §§ 45-54 and 70, 19 January 2017)?