CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 14359/25 and 33039/25 B.P. against Bulgaria lodged on 13 May 2025 and 27 October 2025 respectively communicated on 20 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     These two applications concern complaints about the alleged failure of the authorities to provide requisite medical care to the applicant in detention and the lack of effective remedies in that respect. They raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3. 2.     The applicant has been held in pre-trial detention since 22   December 2022 on murder charges. 3.     He suffers from several medical conditions, in particular glaucoma in both eyes, lipomatosis and prostate enlargement. Several requests for his release, made in particular between August 2023 and October 2025, have been refused by the Sofia Regional Court. Application no. 14359/25 4 .     The applicant complains that the prison administration continually failed to provide him with the eye drops necessary to slow down the progression of his advanced glaucoma condition, despite related medical prescriptions and a judicial injunction of 31 January 2025 of the Sofia City Administrative Court ( разп. №   3356 от 31.01.2025 г. по адм.   д. №   450/2025 г., АС-София-град ) instructing the administration to do so within a seven-day period. 5.     The applicant brought proceedings under Article 304 of the Code of Administrative Procedure before the Sofia City Administrative Court, seeking a one-time fine of the governor of Sofia Prison for failure to comply with the court’s injunction. On 17 April 2025 that court refused his request. 6.     Upon a request by the applicant, on 30 May 2025 the Court indicated to the Bulgarian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to provide him with the medication prescribed for treating his glaucoma condition for the duration of his detention. The applicant and the Government both informed the Court that the medication had been provided to him on 6   June 2025. On 4 February 2026 the Court lifted the interim measure which had been indicated to the Government on 30 May 2025. Application no. 33039/25 7.     The applicant complains about the authorities’ failure to provide him with the necessary medical examinations and treatment in relation to his lipomatosis (he claims that he has hard lumps on the torso and limbs that are causing him acute and constant pain) and prostate enlargement. 8.     Those two conditions were noted in medical expert reports of early 2024, October 2024 and April 2025. 9.     In the injunction of 31 January 2025 (see paragraph 4 above), the Sofia City Administrative Court had ordered the governor of Sofia Prison to take steps within two weeks to ensure that the applicant be examined by a surgeon in connection with the lipomas. 10.     Moreover, in an injunction of 10 September 2025 the Sofia City Administrative Court ordered the governor of Sofia Prison to take steps within two weeks to ensure that the applicant be examined in connection with his enlarged prostate and, if required, be provided with medical treatment for that condition. It noted that although a gastroenterologist who had seen the applicant in March 2025 had recommended that he be seen also by a urologist, that had not been arranged for more than six months ( разп.   №   29501 от 10.09.2025 г. по адм. д. № 8252/2025 г., АС-София-град ). 11.     The applicant brought proceedings under section 405 of the Judicial Power Act before the Sofia City Administrative Court, seeking a one-time fine of the governor of Sofia Prison for failure to comply with the court’s injunction of 10 September 2025. On 17 October 2025, the court refused the request on the basis that, according to information produced by the governor, the injunction had been complied with on 9 October 2025. 12.     Upon a request by the applicant, on 6 November 2025 the Court indicated to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to ensure that the applicant is immediately provided with an adequate medical examination – and, if required by the examining physician, with appropriate diagnostic tests and treatment – in respect of his lipomatosis. On 4   February 2026 the Court lifted the interim measure which had been indicated to the Government on 6 November 2025. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s continued detention been compatible with his state of health and has he received adequate medical care, as required under Article   3 of the Convention, in respect of his glaucoma, lipomatosis and enlarged prostate while in detention since 22 December 2022 (see Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal available effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3, as required under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention? More specifically, could the preventive remedy under sections 276 to 280 of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009, and the compensatory remedy under sections 284 to 286 of the same Act, be considered effective in the circumstances of his applications (see Atanasov and Apostolov v.   Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 65540/16 and 22368/17, § 67, 27 June 2017)?