CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 juin 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   457 28.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MALECHKOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Malechkov v. Bulgaria (application no. 57830/00).   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 Mr Malechkov’ conditions of detention at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service; a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) on account of the authorities’ failure to justify Mr Malechkov’s continued detention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) on account of the limited scope and nature of the judicial control of lawfulness; a violation of Article 5 § 4 ( right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court); and, a violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to liberty and security) regarding Mr   Malechkov’s right to compensation;   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 2,500   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts The applicant, Ivan Stoyanov Malechkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Aleko Konstantinovo (Bulgaria).   On 3 July 1998 Mr Malechkov was placed in temporary detention on suspicion of rape of a minor. He was later charged with being an accomplice to the rape of a minor and, on 7   December 1999, was convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.   Mr Malechkov made appeals against his detention in July 1998 and August 1999. The former were dismissed by Pazardzhik Regional Court due to the seriousness of the offence and the risk that the applicant might abscond. At a hearing in October 1999, Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the appeal made in August for the same reasons, considering that there were no new circumstances and that, given the applicant’s lack of employment, the risk that he would abscond and obstruct the investigation was even greater.   During his detention on remand, Mr Malechkov was held at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service from 3 July to 10 November 1998 and then Pazardzhik Prison until 11   January 2001.   Mr Malechkov complained about the poor conditions in both detention facilities, notably: lack of fresh air or sunlight in the cells; no exercise or healthy food; poor hygiene and sanitary facilities; and, denial of access to newspapers, books, radio or television and restrictions on access to and knowledge of the outside world, notably as concerned his general correspondence rights and contact with his representative.   He particularly complained that, in Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service, he had been held in isolation for the duration of his detention in a cell situated in the basement with fleas, cockroaches and mice. The only light was artificial and was permanently switched on. As concerned Pazardzhik Prison, he stated that conditions had improved in 1999, with better sanitary facilities, pest control, visitors’ rights, meat or fish on the menu several times a week and availability of television, radio, books and newspapers.   The Government disagreed with Mr Malechkov’s allegations, and, in support of that, submitted a letter from the Head of the Pazardzhik Investigation Service Detention Facilities Unit and a report by the warden of the Pazardzhik Prison together with corroborating documents such as orders, schedules, menus and invoices.   Following his conviction, upheld on appeal, Mr Malechkov was moved to Sofia Prison in January 2001. He has since been released.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 January 2000.   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   Relying on Article 3, Mr Malechkov complained about the conditions of his detention in Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and Pazardzhik Prison. Further relying, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5, he complained about the unlawfulness and length of his detention on remand and notably that his appeal of August 1999 had not been decided lawfully or speedily and that he had not had an enforceable right to seek compensation. He also alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive, in breach of Article 6 § 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service The Court observed that the Government simply produced a letter, unsupported by any other evidence, from the Head of the Pazardzhik Investigation Service in which the conditions of Mr Malechkov’s detention in that facility were described as adequate.   Given the lack of evidence to support the Government’s claims, the Court accepted Mr   Malechkov’s allegations to be valid, and, all the more so, as they were also all corroborated by a report made in 1995 by the Council of Europe’s CPT (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture).   The Court considered that the fact that the applicant had been confined to a cell, alone, practically 24 hours a day for a period of more than four months without exposure to natural light and without having been able to undertake any physical activity or other pastime must have caused him considerable suffering. The Court was of the view that, in the absence of compelling security considerations, there had not been any justification for subjecting the applicant to such a stringent regime which could be seen as humiliating.   Having regard to the cumulative effects of that unjustifiably stringent regime and the material conditions in which Mr Malechkov had been kept, the Court concluded that the distress and hardship the applicant had endured had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that the resulting anguish reached the level of severity where Article 3 could be applied. There had therefore been a violation of the Article 3 on account of the applicant's inadequate detention conditions at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service.   Pazardzhik Prison The Court observed that the Government submitted detailed observations, supported by corroborating documents, concerning the conditions of detention at Pazardzhik Prison.   Those observations gave evidence to prove that Mr Malechkov’s living space and general living conditions had been adequate and were in accordance with CPT guidelines, notably as concerned hygiene, food and out-of-cell activities. Contact with the outside world had not been restricted either: the applicant had been able to meet privately with and correspond with his lawyer, receive visitors, borrow books from the prison library, listen to the radio and watch the television or films screened weekly.   Mr Malechkov did not challenge those observations. Indeed, he even corroborated them in his statements about the improved conditions as from 1999.   Having regard to the description of the regime and material conditions in Pazardzhik Prison, the Court concluded that the distress and hardship endured by the applicant had not exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and the resulting anguish had not reached the level of severity where Article 3 could be applied. There had therefore been no violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s detention at Pazardzhik Prison.   Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The Court noted that, as in previous cases against Bulgaria where violations had been found, decisions by the authorities to maintain Mr Malechkov’s detention had failed to give any reasons or evidence about the danger of him absconding, re-offending or obstructing the investigation. Given that the authorities seemed to have considered his detention mandatory, having only relied on statutory provisions for serious and intentional offences, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to justify the applicant’s continued detention and a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the limited scope and nature of the judicial control of lawfulness of his detention.   The Court further observed that the applicant’s appeal in August 1999 had been examined by the trial court almost two months later, in October. The Court considered that period to be excessive and therefore held that there had been a further violation of Article 5 § 4.   Article 5 § 5 The Court noted that, under Bulgarian domestic law, a person who had been remanded in custody could seek compensation only if the detention order had been set aside “for lack of lawful grounds”. In the applicant’s case, his detention on remand had been considered by the domestic courts as being in full compliance with the requirements of domestic law. The applicant had not therefore had an enforceable right to compensation, and given that it did not appear that such a right was secured under any other provision of Bulgarian law, it followed that there had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   Article 6 § 1 Noting that the overall length of the criminal proceedings against Mr Malechkov had lasted two years and four months for two levels of jurisdiction, the Court did not find that the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 had been breached. That part of the application was therefore 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.