CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 août 2006

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; 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 } .sD3427EA2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   465 10.8.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS DOBREV v. BULGARIA and YORDANOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Dobrev v. Bulgaria (application no. 55389/00) and Yordanov v. Bulgaria (no.   56856/00).   In both cases the Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Court of Human Rights on account of the applicants’ detention conditions; a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention on account of the applicants not having been brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power; a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for home) on account of the unlawful search of their apartments.   In the case of Dobrev v. Bulgaria the Court also held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security); a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court); a violation of Article 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Dobrev 3,000   euros (EUR) and Mr Yordanov EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 to Mr Dobrev and EUR 1,000 to Mr Yordanov for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Radoslav Veselinov Dobrev and Nickolay Dobromirov Yordanov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1978 and 1969, respectively. Mr Dobrev lives in Varna (Bulgaria) and Mr Yordanov lives in Pazardjik (Bulgaria).   On 26 August 1999 Mr Dobrev’s home was searched. The search took place in the context of an investigation into a burglary where, among other things, a television and video recorder had been stolen. Mr Yordanov’s apartment was searched on 29 December 1999 following information given to the police by several drug addicts. The police seized various items including drugs at the home of Mr Yordanov and electronic equipment at the home of Mr Dobrev. The applicants were not present at either search. Two witnesses were present in each case but neither of them were the residence’s manager or representative of the municipality, as required by Bulgarian law when the occupant of the premises was absent.     Both applicants were arrested the day the searches were carried out. Mr Dobrev was initially taken into police custody, for which the statutory limit is 24 hours. He was subsequently placed under 24 hours’ preliminary detention, as of 5 p.m. on 28 August 1999. Both applicants were remanded in custody upon a decision of an investigator and approved by the Prosecutor’s Office. They both appealed against their detention without success.   Mr Dobrev was detained for approximately two months, and Mr Yordanov approximately three months, at Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service. They described their cells there as being small, overcrowded and below street level with no natural light or fresh air. They claimed the cells were often plagued with rodents and cockroaches. They alleged that a bucket was provided for their sanitary needs and that there was no hot water, soap or other toiletries. They further maintained that they were not permitted any exercise or access to books or newspapers and that the food provided was inadequate.   Mr Dobrev was transferred to Pazardzhik Prison where he was detained for at least seven months. He alleged he was kept in similar, if slightly improved conditions.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application in the case of Dobrev v. Bulgaria was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 December 1999. The application in Yordanov v. Bulgaria was lodged with the Court on 4 January 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained in particular about their conditions of detention, about the searches made of their homes which they maintained were unlawful and that they were not brought promptly before a judge. Both applicants relied on Articles 3, 5, 8 and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). Mr Dobrev also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Complaints common to both cases   Article 3 The Court found that while there was no indication that the detention conditions or regime in either institution were intended to degrade or humiliate the applicants or that they had a specific impact on their physical or mental health, there was little doubt that certain aspects of the stringent regime operating there could be seen as humiliating.   In conclusion, having regard to the cumulative effects of that unjustifiably stringent regime and the material conditions in which the applicants were kept, the Court found that the distress and hardship the applicants endured during the period of their detention at those facilities exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and the resulting anguish went beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3.   Article 5 § 3 The Court found that neither the investigator nor the prosecutor was 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 that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Article 8 The Court observed that it the searches were not conducted “in accordance with the law” and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 8.   Other complaints raised in the Dobrev case   Article 5 § 1 The Court observed that the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on 26 August 1999 and that, despite the 24 hour time-limit on police custody, another detention order was not placed on him until of 5 p.m. on 28 August 1999. The applicant’s detention between that time was therefore not “lawful” either under domestic law or the Convention.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   Article 5 § 4 The Court noted that one of the applicant’s appeals against his detention was not examined by a court for more than three months. The Court considered that that period amounted to a breach of the applicant’s right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and found a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Article 5 § 5 The Court observed that, contrary to its finding of a violation, the applicant’s detention on remand was considered by the domestic courts as being in full compliance with the requirements of domestic law, with the result that the applicant had no right to compensation.   The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   Articles 6 and 13 The applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 and 13 were declared inadmissible.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press Contacts   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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.   [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.