CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 mai 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 } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   366 22.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ALEXOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Alexov v. Bulgaria (application no. 54578/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicant’s conditions of detention at facilities in Pazardzhik and Montana; no violation of Article 3 concerning the applicant’s conditions of detention at Pazardzhik Prison; no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (right to liberty and security); two violations of Article 5 § 3 because the applicant was not brought promptly before a judge following his arrests on 28   August 1999 and 23   May 2000 and because the authorities failed to justify the applicant’s continued detention after his arrest on 23 May 2000; no violation of Article 5 § 4 in respect of the speediness of the judicial decision in response to the applicant’s appeal of 18 October 1999; a violation of Article 5 § 5 concerning the applicant’s right to compensation; a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) concerning the search of the applicant’s rented apartment; and, two violations of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Dragomir Dimitrov Alexov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness and conditions of his pre-trial detention in facilities in Pazardzhik and Montana.   On 28 August 1999 Mr Alexov was arrested on suspicion of robbery on the grounds that a stolen television had been found by the police during a search of his rented apartment two days earlier. The applicant’s arrest was ordered by an investigator and approved by the public prosecutor’s office. He was subsequently charged and placed in pre-trial detention. That decision referred notably to his lack of a permanent address, the fact that he had committed a number of other burglaries and the risk that he might abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation. On 19 October 1999 the applicant’s appeal against his detention was dismissed on similar grounds. Ultimately, on 10 November 1999 Pazardzhik District Court ordered the applicant’s release subject to a recognisance being provided. He was released on 22   December 1999.   Prior to the Pazardzhik criminal proceedings, Mr Alexov was arrested in April 1998 in a block of flats in Montana where a burglary had just taken place. He was questioned but immediately released. On 15 October 1999 he was charged with that burglary and, referring to the applicant’s “personality”, an order was issued, again by an investigator with the approval of the prosecutor’s office, to place him in pre-trial detention. As the applicant could not be found at the address he had indicated in Montana, an arrest warrant was issued the same day. On the basis of that warrant, he was arrested again on 23 May 2000 and kept in pre-trial detention until 26 June 2000.   During his periods of pre-trial detention Mr Alexov initially spent just over two months at Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service Detention Facility, then one month and 20 days at Pazardzhik Prison and, when arrested again on 23 May 200, just over a month at Montana Regional Investigation Service Detention Facility. The applicant complained about the poor conditions in all three of those facilities, notably: overcrowding; lack of fresh air or sunlight in cells; and, poor sanitary facilities and unhealthy food. In the Pazardzhik and Montana detention facilities, he also alleged that he was not allowed out of his cell for exercise and was denied access to newspapers and books. He did find, however, that conditions in Pazardzhik Prison were slightly better and included limited exercise in the prison yard.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 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), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Renate Jaeger (German), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained about the unlawfulness and conditions of his pre-trial detention in the Pazardzhik and Montana detention facilities and Pazardzhik Prison. He also alleged that the police searched his apartment in August 1999 without a search warrant and in his absence. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Pazardzhik Detention Facility   The Court recalled other similar cases against Bulgaria which had referred to a similar period of pre-trial detention as the applicant’s and in which it had found that the conditions of detention at Pazardzhik Detention Facility had been inadequate.   Furthermore, the parties agreed that the applicant had been kept in a cell below street level with no direct sunlight and had not been allowed out of his cell for exercise. The Court considered that the fact that the applicant had been confined to his cell for practically 24   hours a day for over two months, in apparent isolation, without exposure to natural light and without having been able to undertake any physical activity or other pastime had to have caused him considerable suffering.   Given that stringent regime, which had not been justified by the Government with any compelling security considerations, the Court concluded that the distress and hardship the applicant had endured had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and had gone beyond the threshold of severity where Article 3 could be applied. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 concerning the applicant’s conditions of detention at Pazardzhik Detention Facility.   Pazardzhik Prison   The Court recalled other similar cases against Bulgaria which had referred to a similar period of pre-trial detention as the applicant’s and in which it had found that the conditions of detention at Pazardzhik Prison had been adequate.   Furthermore, it noted that the Government had submitted detailed observations, with supporting documents, to contest the applicant’s allegations, notably as concerned the sanitary facilities, hygiene, food, exercise, fresh air and sunlight in cells. The applicant had not denied those submissions and had even admitted that he had found the conditions at Pazardzhik Prison better than those at Pazardzhik Detention Facility.   Given the regime to which the applicant had been subjected and the material conditions in which he had been held at Pazardzhik Prison, the Court concluded that the distress and hardship he had endured had not exceed the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and had not gone beyond the threshold of severity where Article 3 could be applied. There had therefore been no violation of Article 3 concerning the applicant’s detention at Pazardzhik Prison.   Montana Detention Facility   The Court noted that the applicant had been detained for 18 days with another person in a cell measuring 3.45   sq.   m, which did not meet the Council of Europe’s CPT (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture) guidelines of a minimum of 4   sq.   m per prisoner in multiple occupancy cells.   Furthermore, Montana Detention Facility had lacked a designated area for outdoor exercise so the applicant had been confined to his cell for around 24 hours a day for more than a month, without exposure to natural light and without physical activity or any other pastime. That situation had to have caused him considerable suffering.   Given the cumulative effects of that stringent regime as well as the overcrowding, the Court considered that the distress and hardship the applicant had endured had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and had gone beyond the threshold of severity where Article 3 could be applied. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 concerning the applicant’s conditions of detention at Montana Detention Facility.   Article 5 § 1 (c)   The Court noted that the statutory basis for the applicant’s detention had changed as of 10   November when the district court had ordered his release subject to the provision of a recognisance. Once recognisance had been provided the applicant had been released on 22   December 1999. Consequently, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article   5   § 1 (c) concerning the applicant’s detention from 10 November to 22 December 1999.   The Court further noted that, concerning the Montana criminal proceedings, the applicant had been arrested in a block of flats where a burglary had been committed and had then moved to another town without informing the authorities. The authorities had therefore had sufficient evidence to give rise to a “reasonable” suspicion against the applicant. Accordingly, his detention from 23 May to 26 June 2000 had been lawful and there had been no violation of Article   5   §   1   (c).   Article 5 § 3   Concerning the applicant’s complaint that he was not brought promptly before a judge   The Court recalled that, in previous judgments which had concerned the Bulgarian system of detention pending trial before 1 January 2000, it had found that neither investigators nor prosecutors could be considered as “officer[s] authorised by law to exercise judicial power” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3.   The applicant’s detention on 28 August 1999 and 23 May 2003 had been ordered by an investigator and confirmed by a prosecutor. It therefore followed that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, in violation of Article 5 § 3.   Concerning the applicant’s complaint that his detention was unjustified   The Court found that, as concerned the Pazardzhik criminal proceedings against the applicant, the authorities had assessed evidence such as prior convictions and an apparent lack of a permanent address, which had led them to believe that he might abscond, obstruct the investigation or re-offend. The Court therefore found that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3.   However, as concerned the Montana criminal proceedings against the applicant, the authorities had merely justified the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the grounds of his “personality”. Nor had they reassessed that justification in May 2000 given that the initial arrest warrant had been issued on 15 October 1999. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning the authorities’ failure to justify the applicant’s continued detention after 23 May 2000.   Article 5 § 4   The applicant claimed that, in the Pazardzhik criminal proceedings, he had lodged an appeal on 8 October 1999. However, the Government provided a copy of that appeal dated 18   October 1999. As the appeal had been examined by the Bulgarian courts one day later, the Court considered that there had been no 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 pre-trial detention 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.   Article 8   The Court found that the circumstances in which the search of the applicant’s home had been carried out on 26 August 1999 had been unclear as, at that time, no inquiry or preliminary investigation had been opened. In addition, it appeared that none of the people required by domestic law to be present – the tenant or a member of his family, the manager of the property or a representative of the municipality – had attended the search. Moreover, the Government had not provided any evidence to prove that the search had been ordered and conducted in accordance with domestic legislation. The Court therefore concluded that the search of the applicant’s home in August 1999 had not been conducted “in accordance with the law”, in violation of Article 8.   Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8   The Court considered that, in the applicant’s case, the Government had not shown that an effective remedy existed in Bulgarian law at the relevant time for the applicant to have raised his complaint about the inadequate conditions of his detention or about the interference with his right to respect for his home. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13 both in conjunction with Article 3 and Article 8.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.