CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 juin 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .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 314 9.6.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT I. I. v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of I. I. v. Bulgaria (application no. 44082/98).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 4,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     1.     Principal facts   The applicant is a Bulgarian national born in 1962 and living in Shoumen (Bulgaria).   On 30 and 31 January 1998 the applicant allegedly took part in two violent incidents in a bar and a restaurant in Shoumen. Apparently, during the second incident, a Mr P.P. was beaten, robbed, abducted and threatened with violence.   At 11.55 p.m. on 31 January 1998 the applicant was questioned at the Regional Police Department in Shoumen, where he claims he was kept under arrest. The Bulgarian Government denied that he was deprived of his liberty at that time.   On 1 or 2 February 1998 he was transferred to a Shoumen Regional Investigation Service detention facility where he remained until his release.   On 2 February 1998 an investigator ordered the applicant’s preliminary detention for 24 hours, as from 3.30 p.m. that day, on suspicion that he had committed abduction and unlawful deprivation of liberty on 31 January 1998. The order stated that the applicant had been arrested immediately after he had committed the alleged offence. On 3 February 1998 a prosecutor extended the applicant’s preliminary detention for three more days, starting to run from the day of the extension. On 5 February 1998 the applicant was brought before an investigator, who ordered his pre-trial detention. That order was confirmed by a prosecutor the same day.   The applicant’s appeal against his pre-trial detention was rejected by the Shoumen Regional Court, which held that it could not go into issues relating to the accusation and the evidence against the applicant, as that concerned the merits of the criminal case against him. The applicant remained in detention until 30 April 1998, when he was released on bail.   The Government conceded that the sanitary conditions in Shoumen Regional Investigation Service detention facility during the relevant period had been below the minimum required standards. It further conceded that the facility had been overcrowded, that the cells did not have direct access to sunlight and fresh air, that the detainees were allowed to visit the toilet only three times a day and had to use a bucket to relieve themselves at other times, and that there were no proper shower and bathing facilities.   The applicant submitted in addition that the cell was damp, underground and approximately six square meters with no windows and a solid metal door with only a small aperture allowing guards to inspect the cell. He also claimed that detainees slept on wooden planks without bed linen, that his psoriasis was aggravated by the condition in the cell and that he developed acute eczema and started to develop psoriatic arthritis.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 July 1998 and transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 25 March 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention, that his detention between 31 January and 2   February 1998 was unlawful, that after his arrest he was not brought before a judge or a judicial officer, and that he was denied a full and speedy judicial review of his detention. He relied on Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that the applicant was detained for three months in a cell of six square metres, apparently occupied by three to four detainees. The cell was dark, poorly ventilated and apparently damp and the conditions in which the detainees had to relieve themselves in the toilet and attend to their personal hygiene were unacceptable. There was no provision for outdoor or out ‑ of ‑ cell activities; the applicant had to spend practically all his time in the cell, which had no window and was lit by a single electric bulb.   The Court considered that the fact that the applicant had to spend almost 24 hours a day for nearly three months in an overcrowded cell without natural light or access to physical or other out ‑ of ‑ cell activities must have caused him intense suffering. In the absence of compelling security considerations, there was no justification for subjecting him to such treatment. Neither was it warranted to subject a detainee to the humiliation of having to relieve himself in a bucket in the presence of his cellmates and of being present while the same bucket was being used by them, except where allowing visits to the sanitary facilities would pose a concrete and serious security risk. The Government had not claimed that such risks existed.   The Court observed that many of the shortcomings outlined above could have been remedied even in the absence of considerable financial means. In any event, a lack of resources could not in principle justify detention conditions which were so poor as to reach the threshold of severity contrary to Article 3.   Having regard to the cumulative effects of the unduly stringent regime to which the applicant was subjected, the material conditions in which he was kept and the impact those conditions had on his health, the Court held, unanimously, that the conditions of the applicant’s detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   Article 5 § 1 The Court noted that the applicant’s detention between 11.55 p.m. on 31 January 1998 and 3.30 p.m. on 2 February 1998 did not appear to come within the ambit of any of the provisions governing detention under Bulgarian law.   Even accepting that Bulgarian law apparently allowed a short period to elapse between a person’s de facto arrest and the issuing of the order for his “preliminary detention” by the competent investigator, the Court could not overlook the fact that the applicant remained in custody for approximately 39-and-a-half hours without any such order being issued. The order for the applicant’s preliminary detention also stated that the 24 hour period, during which such detention was permitted when initially ordered by an investigator, started to run at 3.30 p.m. on 2 February 1998, not earlier. It thus appeared that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty between 11.55 p.m. on 31 January 1998 and 3.30 p.m. on 2 February 1998 had no legal basis in domestic law. The court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   Article 5 § 3 As it had held in previous judgments concerning pre-trial detention in Bulgaria prior to 1 January 2000, the Court found that neither the investigator, nor the prosecutor involved in the applicant’s case were sufficiently independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 5 §   3, in view of the practical role they played in the investigation and the prosecution and the prosecutor’s potential participation as a party to the criminal proceedings. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning the applicant’s right to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.   Article 5 § 4 The Court observed that Shoumen Regional Court held that it could not inquire into issues relating to the adequacy of the evidence against the applicant. Neither did the court give specific reasons why it considered that the applicant presented a risk of re ‑ offending, impeding the investigation or absconding. It held that it could solely focus on issues relating to the applicant’s health, only briefly noting – without giving any reasons – that there were no grounds for releasing the applicant in view of the pending investigation.     Finding that the domestic court did not provide judicial control over the applicant’s detention on remand of the scope required by Article 5 § 4, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.     In view of that finding the Court did not consider it necessary to rule on whether or not that defective judicial review was conducted speedily.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   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.   [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]   This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.