CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 23 février 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s18D96D33 { width:15.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32AFAD20 { width:26.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   083 23.02.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING NACHOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 23 February 2005 at 9.00 a.m., in the case of Nachova and others v. Bulgaria (applications nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98).   The applicants   The applicants, Anelia Nachova, Aksiniya Hristova (Ms Nachova’s mother), Todorka Rangelova and Rangel Rangelov, are all Bulgarian nationals who describe themselves as being of Roma origin. They were born in 1995, 1978, 1955 and 1954 respectively. Ms Nachova and Ms Hristova both live in Dobrolevo and Ms Rangelova and Mr Rangelov live in Lom (Bulgaria).   Summary of the facts   The case concerns the killing on 19 July 1996 of the applicants’ relatives, Kuncho Angelov (father of Ms Nachova) and Kiril Petkov (son of Ms Rangelova and Mr Rangelov), both aged 21, by a military policeman who was trying to arrest them.   Mr Angelov and Mr   Petkov were both conscripts in a division of the army dealing with the construction of apartment blocks and other civilian projects.     Early in 1996 they had been arrested for repeated absences without leave. On 22 May 1996 Mr Angelov was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and Mr Petkov to five months’ imprisonment. Both had previous convictions for theft.   On 15 July 1996 they escaped from a construction site where they were working and went to the home of Mr   Angelov’s grandmother in Lesura. Neither was armed.   On 19 July 1996 the commanding officer in the Vratsa Military-Police Unit, Colonel D., sent four military police officers, under the command of Major G., to arrest the two men. At least two of the officers knew one or both of the men.   Colonel D. told the officers that “in accordance with the rules” they should carry their handguns and automatic rifles and wear bullet-proof vests. He informed them that Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov were “criminally active” (криминално проявени) – a euphemism used to describe people with previous convictions or those suspected of committing offences – and that they had escaped from detention. The officers were instructed to use all necessary means to arrest them.   When the police arrived at Mr   Angelov’s grandmother’s house, the two men tried to escape. After warning them that he would shoot if they did not surrender, Major G. shot them down using his automatic rifle. They were taken to Vrasta Hospital, where they were pronounced dead on arrival.   An eyewitness claimed that, because his grandson – a young boy – had been in the area where the shooting occurred, he had asked Major G. for permission to approach and remove him from danger. Major G. had pointed his gun at him, saying: “You damn Gypsies!”.   A criminal investigation into the deaths was opened the same day. The autopsy report found that both men had died from gunfire wounds, fired from an automatic rifle from a distance. Mr Petkov had been shot in his chest and Mr Angelov in his back.   The investigation concluded that Major G. had followed Regulation 45 of the Military Police Regulations. He had warned the two men several times and fired shots in the air. He had shot them only because they had not surrendered, as there had been a danger they might escape, and he had tried to avoid inflicting fatal injuries. No one else had been hurt. On those grounds the authorities refused to prosecute the military police officers.   The applicants appealed unsuccessfully.   Complaints   The applicants alleged that their relatives were deprived of their lives in violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, as a result of deficient law and practice which permitted the use of lethal force without absolute necessity. They also complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths, in violation of Article 2 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The applicants further alleged that prejudice and hostile attitudes towards people of Roma origin had played a decisive role in the events leading up to the shootings and the fact that no meaningful investigation was carried out, relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 2.   Procedure   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 May 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. They were joined on 22 March 2001 and declared partly admissible on 28 February 2002.   In its Chamber judgment of 26 February 2004 the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 2 concerning both the shootings and the lack of an effective investigation and violations of Article 14 concerning the lack of an investigation into whether discriminatory attitudes played a role in the shootings and concerning the shootings themselves.   On 21 May 2004 the Bulgarian Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber [1] and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 7 July 2004.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech) Josep Casadevall (Andorran), John Hedigan (Irish), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), judges , Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), substitute judges , and also Lawrence Early , Deputy to the Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Margarita Dimova and Milena Kotzeva , co-agents ;   Applicants:   Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Yonko Grozev , counsel .     After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91     The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2]     Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein.