CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 juillet 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   533 26.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ANGELOVA AND ILIEV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria (application no. 55523/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, in that the authorities failed to take appropriate steps to investigate the racially-motivated killing of the applicants’ relative and to prosecute those responsible.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded 15,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, payable jointly to the applicants, and EUR   3,500 in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Ginka Dimitrova Angelova, and her son, Mitko Dimitrov Iliev, are Bulgarian nationals.   They are the mother and brother of Angel Dimitrov Iliev, of Roma origin, who was attacked by seven teenagers in the evening of 18 April 1996, in Shumen (Bulgaria). He was severely beaten and also stabbed several times by one of the assailants. Although he was later taken to   hospital, he died the following morning.   The police detained the assailants and questioned them on the day of the attack. One of them, G.M.G. – after being identified by two of the others (N.K. and S.H.) as the person who had stabbed Angel Dimitrov Iliev – was charged with murder stemming from an act of hooliganism. The investigators were informed by another of the assailants, D.K., that the attack had been racially motivated because the victim was of Roma origin.   An autopsy of the victim was performed on 20 April 1996. It established that he had been stabbed three times in the thigh and twice in the abdomen. He also had bruises on his face and the back of his head. The autopsy concluded that the cause of death was internal haemorrhaging, resulting from the severance of the profunda femoris artery in his thigh.   On 15 and 16 May 1996 four of the assailants were charged with hooliganism of exceptional cynicism and impudence.   On 14 June 1996 the Shumen District Prosecutor’s Office found that there was a lack of evidence that G.M.G. had stabbed the victim, dismissed the charges against him and released him. He was then charged in the same way as the other four assailants. And, on 21 June 1996, N.R. and S.H. were charged with having made false statements against G.M.G..   On 26 June 1996 the second assailant was charged with negligent homicide. He pleaded not guilty.   On several occasions the applicants made unsuccessful attempts to gain information on the progress of the case. However, sometime in the spring of 1999, their lawyer was granted access to the case file.   On 18 October 1999 the applicants filed a request to be recognised as civil claimants in the criminal proceedings and, on 18 December 1999, they filed a complaint about the length of the proceedings. It appears that no action was taken in response to their complaint.   Subsequently, a number of face-to-face meetings were organised between various of the assailants and reports were requested by the investigating authorities.   On 17 April 2000 Ginka Dimitrova Angelova was recognised as a civil claimant in the criminal proceedings.   On 12 June 2001 the investigator in charge concluded that the case should go to trial and the case file was transferred to the Shumen Regional Prosecutor’s Office. There was then no development in the criminal proceedings for four years.   On 18 March 2005 the prosecutor’s office dismissed the hooliganism and false incrimination charges against all the assailants who had been juveniles at the relevant time, because the time limit for bringing a case against them had expired. Relying on the evidence collected and the tests conducted in the course of the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor’s office also dismissed the charges against the second assailant for negligent homicide and remitted the case for further investigation, with instructions that G.M.G. be again charged with murder stemming from an act of hooliganism. A hooliganism charge remained in relation to another of the accused, who had been 18 years old at the time of the attack.   On 22 April 2005 the applicants and the victim’s three sisters filed a request to be recognised as civil claimants in the criminal proceedings and claimed damages.   On 16 May 2005 the applicants’ lawyer was informed that the case file had been requested and was being held by the Ministry of Justice. The Court has not been informed of any further developments in the criminal proceedings.       2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 February 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   The applicants alleged that the authorities failed to carry out a proper investigation capable of leading to the trial and conviction of the individuals responsible for the ill-treatment and death of their relative. They also complained that domestic criminal legislation contained no specific provisions or penalties for racially-motivated crimes. Lastly, the applicants alleged that the excessive length of the criminal proceedings had prevented them from gaining access to a court to claim damages. They relied on Article 2, Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 14 and Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The Court observed that the preliminary investigation into Angel Dimitrov Iliev’s death had been opened almost immediately after the attack on 18 April 1996. Within less than a day investigators had identified those who had perpetrated the attack, had detained or questioned all of them and had charged the first assailant. At the same time, the investigation was informed by one of the assailants, D.K., that the attack had been racially motivated because the victim was of Roma origin. Within another month, medical and other reports had been requested and the remaining five assailants had been charged. The Court further observed that the changes in the testimonies of those assailants who had at first blamed G.M.G. for stabbing the victim had initially been dealt with expeditiously by the authorities.   Over the next three years, however, the preliminary investigation became protracted for undisclosed reasons, with investigative procedures being performed approximately once a year. From 1999 to 2001 there was more activity on the part of the authorities, but nothing further of substance transpired. Then, for a period of four years between 2001 and 2005, there were absolutely no further developments and the criminal proceedings remained at the investigation stage until the case before the European Court was communicated to the Bulgarian Government. As a result of the accumulated delays, the time limit expired for prosecuting the majority of the assailants. Thus, in spite of the authorities having identified the assailants almost immediately after the attack and having determined with some degree of certainty the identity of the person who had stabbed the victim, no one was brought to trial for the attack on the applicants’ relative over a period of more than 11 years. The Court further observed that the Government had failed to provide convincing explanations for the length of the criminal proceedings.   The Court recognised that the preliminary investigation was still pending against two of the assailants, but, considering the length of the proceedings so far, it found it questionable whether either of them would ever be brought to trial or be successfully convicted. The Court also did not consider that the applicants should have waited for the completion of the criminal proceedings before filing their complaints before the Court, as the conclusion of those proceedings would not remedy their overall delay in any way.   As to whether Bulgaria’s legal system provided adequate protection against racially-motivated offences, the Court observed that there were no specific crimes for racially- motivated murder or serious bodily injury and no explicit penalty-enhancing provisions relating to such offences. However, the Court considered that other means might also be employed to attain the desired result of punishing perpetrators with racist motives. The possibility existed in domestic legislation to impose a more severe sentence depending on, among other things, the motive of the offender. The Court further observed that the authorities had charged the assailants with aggravated offences, which, though failing to make a direct reference to the perpetrators’ racist motives, provided for more severe sentences than those envisaged under domestic legislation for racial hatred offences. Thus, it did not consider that domestic legislation and the lack of penalty-enhancing provisions for racist murder or serious bodily injury were responsible for hampering or constraining the authorities from conducting an effective investigation into Angel Dimitrov Iliev’s death and applying existing domestic legislation effectively.   The Court concluded that the authorities had failed in their obligation under Article 2 to effectively investigate Angel Dimitrov Iliev’s death promptly, expeditiously and with the required vigour, considering the racial motives of the attack and the need to maintain the confidence of minority groups in the ability of the authorities to protect them from the threat of racist violence. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2.   Articles 3 and 13   The Court did not consider it necessary to make a separate finding under Articles 3 and 13.   Article 14   The Court noted that the racist motives of the assailants in perpetrating the attack against Angel Dimitrov Iliev had become known to the authorities at a very early stage of the investigation, when D.K. had given a statement to that affect on 19 April 1996. The Court considered it completely unacceptable that, while aware that the attack was incited by racial hatred, the authorities had not completed the preliminary investigation against the assailants and brought them to trial expeditiously. On the contrary, they allowed the criminal proceedings to procrastinate and to remain at the investigation stage for more than 11 years. As a result, the time limit expired for prosecuting the majority of the assailants. In addition, the Court observed that the authorities had failed to charge the assailants with any racially-motivated offences. It noted in that respect the widespread prejudices and violence against Roma during the relevant period and the need to reassert continuously society’s condemnation of racism and to maintain the confidence of minorities in the authorities’ ability to protect them from the threat of racist violence. The Court concluded that the authorities had failed to make the required distinction from other, non-racially motivated offences, which constituted unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14. Consequently, it found that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2.   The Court did not consider it necessary to make a separate finding under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3.   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that the applicants had not brought a civil claim against Angel Dimitrov Iliev’s assailants and that, had they done so, the competent civil court would have been able to accept it for examination. It was true that the court would have, in all likelihood, stayed the proceedings, had it found that the relevant facts involved criminal acts. However, the civil courts were not bound by a refusal or delay of the prosecuting authorities to investigate. In circumstances where the applicants did not bring a civil action, it was pure speculation to consider that the civil proceedings would have remained stayed for a long period, as claimed by the applicants. Their complaint that the length of the criminal proceedings effectively denied them access to a court to claim damages 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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. [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.