CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 janvier 2008

.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 } .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   029 17.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DODOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Dodov v. Bulgaria (application no. 59548/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of Bulgaria’s failure to provide effective judicial remedies with which to establish the facts concerning the applicant’s mother’s disappearance and to bring to account those responsible for endangering her life; no violation of Article 2 of the Convention concerning the reaction of the police to Mrs   Stoyanova’s disappearance; and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Nikolai Ivanov Dodov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Sofia.   The case concerned the disappearance of Mr Dodov’s mother, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, from the state-run Sofia Nursing Home for the elderly.   In May 1994 the applicant’s mother, Ms Stoyanova, 63 years old at the time, was admitted to the Sofia Nursing Home, located on a busy boulevard in the district of Kniazhevo. According to a medical opinion, Ms Stoyanova’s memory and other mental capacities progressively deteriorated and she needed constant supervision. The nursing home staff had been instructed not to leave her unattended.   On 4 December 1995 Mr Dodov went to visit his mother but was informed that she had gone missing. It was explained to him that his mother had been accompanied by a medical orderly to consult a dermatologist outside the nursing home. Upon their return, the medical orderly had left Mrs Stoyanova alone in the courtyard and, on going back to fetch her a few minutes later, had found that she was no longer there.   The police, alerted to the disappearance the same day, interviewed witnesses from the nursing home who testified that they had immediately searched the area of the nursing home in vain. Four days later, Mrs Stoyanova was recorded as a person sought by the police and, seven days later, a press release was issued. The police also subsequently checked patients admitted to psychiatric clinics and leads given by the public.   Ms Stoyanova has never been seen since.   On 5 July 1996 Mr Dodov brought criminal proceedings against the nursing home staff alleging that they had been negligent and were responsible for his mother’s disappearance. The ensuing investigation was discontinued and reopened four times. In 1998 and 2000, the prosecuting authorities decided to discontinue the proceedings on the ground that staff had acted in accordance with normal practice in leaving residents in the home’s courtyard – surrounded by a fence and guarded – while their medical orderly reported to the doctor on duty. In 2001, the prosecutors stated that the staff had been negligent but discontinued the proceedings on the ground that such negligence was not punishable under Bulgarian criminal law. Finally, in 2003 the proceedings were terminated as prosecution of those responsible had become time-barred. In that decision it was suggested that the applicant’s mother might have scaled the fence of the nursing home or left through another exit. It was also found that regulations on the duties of staff in the nursing home were not clear.   Also in July 1996, Mr Dodov filed a complaint about the police in which he accused them of not having taken the necessary steps to search for his mother. It was decided, however, in 1997 and 1999, not to open criminal proceedings.   On 10 July 1996, the applicant brought civil proceedings against the Ministry of Labour and Social Care, the Ministry of Interior and Sofia Municipality for non-pecuniary damages caused by his mother’s disappearance. There were numerous adjournments of those proceedings up until 2002 when the courts decided that the State Responsibility for Damage Act had not been the correct legal procedure for the applicant’s complaint. The proceedings were recommenced under general tort law and are, apparently, still pending.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 December 1998.   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 2, Mr Dodov alleged that his mother’s life had been put at risk through the negligence of Sofia Nursing Home staff, that the police had not undertaken all necessary measures to search for his mother immediately after her disappearance and that the ensuing investigation had not resulted in criminal or disciplinary sanctions. Further relying on Article 6 § 1, he complained about the excessive length of the civil proceedings to obtain compensation.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The court found it reasonable to assume that the applicant’s mother had died. It also found that there had been a direct link between the failure to supervise Ms   Stoyanova, despite instructions to never leave her unattended, and her disappearance. The Court went on to examine whether Bulgaria had been responsible for not safeguarding the right to life in that its legal system had not ensured accountability for the negligence which had led to Ms   Stoyanova’s disappearance.   Concerning the adequacy of the judicial remedies   The Court observed that there had been lengthy periods of inactivity in the criminal investigation and that basic investigative measures, such as questioning the nursing home staff, had been taken several years after Ms   Stoyanova had disappeared and only at the applicant’s insistence. Furthermore, the prosecuting authorities’ decisions in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2003 had been contradictory: the facts changed in each decision and the legal grounds for having refused to bring proceedings against the nursing home staff had been unclear. In particular, the decisions of 1998 and 2000 had essentially been based on the argument that staff had acted in accordance with normal practice, without analysing whether that practice had indeed revealed negligence.   No disciplinary measures had been taken against the nursing home staff despite the prosecutors’ finding that staff members had been negligent. Moreover, it appeared that at no time had the relevant authorities sought to identify any errors in management, training or control.   The civil proceedings had so far lasted more than ten years and had not yet produced even a first instance decision. That delay was in itself sufficient to conclude that the civil proceedings had not established the facts surrounding the disappearance and presumed death of Mrs Stoyanova and had not called to account those responsible in an effective and timely manner.   The Court therefore found that, despite the availability in Bulgarian law of three avenues of redress – criminal, disciplinary and civil – the authorities had not, in practice, provided the applicant with the means to establish the facts surrounding the disappearance of his mother and bring to account those people or institutions that had breached their duties, in violation of Article 2.   Concerning the reaction of the police to Mrs   Stoyanova’s disappearance   The nursing home was located on a busy boulevard in Sofia, a city of more than one million inhabitants. The staff of the nursing home, unlike the police, could identify Mrs Stoyanova and had had no success when searching the area. The Court did not therefore find it unreasonable that the police officers’ had decided not to deploy forces for an immediate search. Consequently, the Court, bearing in mind the practical realities of daily police work, was not convinced that the reaction of the police to Ms Stoyanova’s disappearance had been inadequate. It therefore found that there had been no violation of Article 2.   Article 6 § 1   The delays in the civil proceedings had been for two main reasons: adjournments in the examination of the case and the decision in 2002 to recommence the proceedings under a different procedure. The Court found that the adjournments between 1996 and 2002 had mostly been the authorities’ responsibility. The Court further found that it was striking that the courts had only realised in 2002 that the applicant’s case had been brought under the wrong legal procedure and considered that the authorities’ decision to recommence the collection of evidence had been unjustified and incompatible with their duty to act with particular expedition in a case which had concerned the right to life. The Court therefore concluded that the civil proceedings, which had lasted ten years, did not correspond to the “reasonable time” requirement, in violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   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.