CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 17 avril 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Final Resolution ResDH(2001)59 Human Rights Application No. 28882/95 Nankov against Bulgaria (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 April 2001 at the 749 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (98) 381, adopted on 12 November 1998 in the case of Nankov against Bulgaria, in which the Committee of Ministers in particular decided that there had been violations of Article 5, paragraph 3, and of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the applicant's detention on remand and of the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings brought against him, and decided to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights; Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 16 December 1998; Whereas at the 695th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers held by a decision adopted on 14 February 2000, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, a global sum of 10 500 French francs, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicant; Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 12 November 1998 and 14 February 2000, having regard to Bulgaria’s obligation under former Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State accordingly gave the Committee information about the individual and general measures taken in consequence of the Committee’s decisions in order to remedy the applicant's situation and to prevent new violations of the same kind as those found in this case (this information appears in the appendix to this resolution); Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 12 May 2000, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicant the global sum of 10 500 French francs as just satisfaction, Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of Bulgaria, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case.   Appendix to Final Resolution ResDH(2001)59 Information provided by the Government of Bulgaria during the examination of the Nankov case by the Committee of Ministers - Individual measures As regards the applicant's detention on remand, he was released on bail immediately after the European Commission of Human Rights had adopted its report. As regards the length of criminal proceedings, following the finding of violation of Article 6, the competent court (Teteven regional court) gave priority to the Nankov case and took a number of measures to accelerate the proceedings. Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice and European Legal Integration has brought the proceedings under its own administrative supervision, to prevent further delays imputable to the State. However, the hearings before the court have been repeatedly postponed for certain reasons which are not dependent on either the court or the executive (for example, in 2000-2001 the applicant has been suffering from a serious infectious disease requiring him to be placed in placed in quarantine and was thus unable to attend hearings. Consequently, the proceedings have not yet been concluded. The Government has been informed that the judicial authorities firmly resolve to conclude these proceedings rapidly and will continue to adopt all necessary measures to that effect in full respect of the applicant's health and his procedural rights provided for in the domestic law and the Convention. - General measures The Government considers that the finding that the excessive length of the criminal proceedings in this case violated Article 6, paragraph 1, does not in itself indicate that there are structural shortcomings in Bulgaria’s administration of justice. However, the violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, was largely a consequence of the law on detention on remand. In this connection, the Government points out that the law in force at the time still provided for compulsory detention on remand, especially in the case of recidivists (former Article 152, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure). This obligation has already been revoked by an amendment published in the Official Gazette on 8 August 1997 (No. 64/1997). In addition, the reform of criminal procedure which Parliament adopted on 22 July 1999, and which came into force when published in the Official Gazette on 6 August 1999 (No. 70/1999), made further changes in Article 152, and especially the section which waived compulsory detention on remand only in cases where the accused could show that there was no risk of his/her absconding or committing a further offence (former paragraph 2 of Article 152). The new Article 152 provides that detention on remand shall be ordered in cases concerning criminal offences punished by deprivation of liberty, where it emerges from the case-file that there is a real danger of the accused absconding or re-offending (new Article 152, paragraph 1). When this danger no longer exists, detention on remand shall be replaced by a less severe measure (new Article 152, paragraph 3). In addition, the maximum period of detention on remand before the case is referred to a court is two months, except where the accused is charged with a serious wilful crime or a crime carrying a prison sentence of at least 15 years. In these two cases, the maximum periods of detention on remand before the case is referred to a court are one and two years respectively. At the end of these periods, the accused is released by order of the prosecutor (new Article 152, paragraph 5). The Bulgarian Government considers that the new text of Article 152 therefore puts sufficient emphasis on the exceptional nature of detention on remand, obliges prosecutors and investigators to prove to the judge that there are valid and objective reasons (e.g. a danger of the accused absconding or re-offending) for ordering and prolonging detention on remand, and also puts sufficient emphasis on the need for special diligence in conducting the investigation by imposing strict time-limits on detention on remand during the pre-trial investigation stage. (see Resolution DH (2000) 109 in the Assenov case). Lastly, the Government states that the wide publicity it has given to the Assenov judgment, which raises inter alia the same problems concerning the length of detention on remand, has done much to raise awareness among prosecutors, investigators and judges, who will no longer fail to take account of the requirements of Article 5 in performing their duties. In view of the foregoing, the Government considers that these measures will prevent further, similar violations of Article 5, paragraph 3, and that Bulgaria has therefore fulfilled its obligations under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case.