CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 février 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   88 7.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KOSTADINOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kostadinov v. Bulgaria (application no. 55712/00).   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 Kostadinov’s conditions of detention at Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility; a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention at Pazardzhik Prison; a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) on account of the authorities’ failure to justify the applicant’s continued detention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the limited scope and nature of the judicial control of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the applicant’s request for release of 1   July 1999 not having been examined “speedily”; and a violation of Article 5 § 5 concerning Mr Kostadinov’s right to compensation.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Stefan Lazarov Kostadinov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria).   On 18 January 1999 the applicant was remanded in custody on charges of robbery during which he had stolen almost 9,000 EUR by force, leaving the victim unconscious.   Mr Kostadinov made three appeals against his detention on 27 January, 1 March and 29 March 1999, which were dismissed by local courts due, in particular, to the seriousness of the applicant’s offence and the risk that he might abscond or obstruct the investigation. The courts found in the applicant’s favour concerning his fourth request for release, which he had filed on 1 July 1999. They found that he had no criminal record, had good character references and, in any event, the preliminary investigation had already been completed. He was ultimately released on 27 July 1999 and subsequently acquitted.     Between 18 January and 1 July 1999 the applicant was detained at Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility and, from 1 July to 27   July 1999, at Pazardzhik Prison.   The applicant complained about the poor conditions in both detention facilities: insufficient oxygen in the cells; inadequate hygiene, including the use of a bucket for the sanitary needs of detainees and the presence of parasites (fleas and wood worms), skin infections (scabies) and rodents (mice and rats); insufficient natural light; no special recreational area; unhealthy food; no access to literature, newspapers, magazines, radio or television; no possibility for him to meet with his lawyer in private at his initiative; and, restricted correspondence rights.   Following Mr Kostadinov’s application to the European Court of Human Rights, the Bulgarian Government did not submit any observations on his complaints.      2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12   October 1999 and declared partly admissible on 22   May 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3, Mr Kostadinov complained that he was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment while detained at Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility and at Pazardzhik Prison. Further relying on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5, he complained about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention and, notably, that his appeal of 1   July 1999 was not decided speedily and that he did not have an enforceable right to seek compensation.     Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court observed, in particular, that the Government had not offered a convincing explanation for their failure to submit relevant information regarding the two detention facilities and therefore accepted Mr Kostadinov’s allegations to be valid.   Conditions of detention at Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility   The Court considered that the fact the applicant had been confined to his cell, situated in the basement, for practically 24 hours a day for a period of more than five 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 the unjustifiably stringent regime to which the applicant had been subjected and the material conditions in which he had been kept, the Court concluded that the distress and hardship he had endured had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that the resulting anguish had gone beyond the threshold of severity, in breach of Article 3.   Conditions of detention at Pazardzhik Prison   Similarly, at Pazardzhik Prison, the Court considered that the distress and hardship endured by the applicant had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. Furthermore, it noted that Mr Kostadinov had been transferred to Pazardzhik Prison after having been held for more than five months at the other facility in inadequate conditions.   The Court therefore concluded that the anguish resulting from the adverse conditions of detention at Pazardzhik Prison had also gone beyond the threshold of severity, in breach of Article 3.   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 the applicant’s detention had failed to give any reasons or evidence about the danger of him absconding, re-offending or obstructing the investigation. Local courts relied in particular on statutory provisions requiring mandatory detention for serious intentional offences. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to justify Mr Kostadinov’s continued detention. It also held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the limited scope and nature of the judicial control of lawfulness of the applicant’s detention in response to his application for release of 29 March 1999.   The Court further observed that the applicant’s request for release of 1 July 1999 had only been examined by the trial court 26 days later, in breach of the requirement for a speedy decision under 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, the Court found 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) 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.