CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 avril 2007

.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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   210 5.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TODOR TODOROV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Todor Todorov v. Bulgaria (application no. 50765/99).   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, on account of the conditions in which the applicant had been detained in Pazardjik investigation department and Pazardjik prison; a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the Convention ; a violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to liberty and security).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 499 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Todor Delchev Todorov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Gelemenovo (Bulgaria).   The applicant was arrested and placed in police custody on 17 January 1999, in the context of a murder investigation. The next day, on an order from an investigator from the regional investigation department, he was placed in the detention block of the Pazardjik investigation department, where he remained until 25 June 1999; he was transferred on that date to Pazardjik Prison.   The applicant complained of the conditions in which he was detained. He alleged that he was detained with two other individuals in the Pazardjik investigation department, in a cell measuring about 16 m 2 which had limited light and ventilation, and which was teeming with mice and cockroaches. The detainees, who were permitted to brief twice-daily visits to the toilet facilities, had to relieve themselves for the rest of the day in a bucket placed in their cell. Once a week they had access to a bathroom in order to wash, but there was insufficient hot water. According to the applicant, the right to a daily walk outdoors was not guaranteed and no leisure activities were available to the detainees. Food, which was of poor quality and insufficient in quantity, was served in dirty dishes without cutlery.     In Pazardjik Prison, the applicant shared a cell measuring 15 m 2 with five others; he claimed that the food there was also of poor quality and the canteen premises were dilapidated.   On 26 July 1999 the Bulgarian courts granted the applicant’s application for release on bail. The applicant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on 23   January 2002.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 May 1999 and declared partly admissible on 13 December 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in the investigation department’s premises, then in Pazardjik Prison. He also complained that he had not been brought promptly before a judge after his arrest and claimed that, under Bulgarian law, he had no effective right to a remedy in order to complain of those violations. He relied on Articles 3 and 5.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that the findings reached by the CPT   (the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) in its 1995 and 1999 reports during which Pazardjik investigation department and Pazardjik Prison had been visited, fully corroborated the applicant’s allegations with regard to his conditions of detention; indeed, most of the allegations were not denied by the Bulgarian Government.   As to the five-month period of detention in the Pazardjik investigation department Although the size of the cells seemed acceptable to the Court, especially in view of the CPT’s recommendations following its on-site visit, the Court noted, however, that the material and sanitary conditions in which the applicant had been detained were highly unsatisfactory.   In particular, the Court noted that the applicant’s cell had no window that could be opened and that daylight barely passed through a thick green-coloured pane of glass; electric light from the corridor could enter the cell only through an opening above the door, and the ventilation system did not work; the mattresses and blankets were dirty and worn. In such conditions, it was a matter of concern that, during the five months he was held in detention, the applicant had spent practically all his time within the cell, except for two or three daily trips to the toilet facilities. The Court also noted that no physical or outdoor activity, or even an out-of-cell activity, had been offered to the detainees, and that the daily walk provided for by the rules did not always take place.   As to the fact of being able to use the toilet facilities only twice a day and having to use a bucket in the cell for the rest of the time, the Court considered such a situation humiliating, especially where, as had been the case for the applicant, detainees were obliged to relieve themselves in the presence of their co-detainees. In any event, the restrictions imposed on the use of the toilet facilities appeared to have no justification on security or other grounds.   Finally, the Court noted that the food served to the detainees was limited in quantity and of poor quality; it was served without cutlery and the detainees had to eat with their hands.   As to the one-month period of detention in Pazardjik Prison The Court considered that the size of the cell was clearly inadequate, particularly with regard to the criteria established by the CPT, which has recommended a minimum area of 4 m2 per person for a cell occupied by several detainees; in the present case, the living space had been 2.5 m2 per person.   In those circumstances, the Court   considered that, taken together, the effects of the detention procedure applied to the applicant, his material conditions and the length of the detention period had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. It therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 5 § 3   The Court noted that neither the investigator who had questioned the applicant and ordered his placement in pre-trial detention nor the prosecutor who had subsequently confirmed such detention could be considered as sufficiently independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 5 § 3. As the applicant had not been brought promptly before a judge until his appeal against detention was examined, namely 26 days after his arrest, the Court found that he had not been brought promptly after his arrest before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and accordingly concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   3.   Article 5 § 5   Noting that the applicant did not have a right under Bulgarian law to compensation for the violation of Article 5, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.     ***   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 Convention, 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. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.