CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 janvier 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   007 07.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Petyo Petkov v. Bulgaria (application no. 32130/03)     IRREGULARITIES IN THE TRIAL AND DETENTION OF A MAN ACCUSED OF A SULPHURIC ACID ATTACK AND SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUITTED   Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) (obligation to wear a balaclava throughout the trial) No violation of Article 3 (applicant’s deprivation of access to the other prisoners’ activities) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) Violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Petyo Stoyanov Petkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Sofia. He is a taxi driver. Following a sulphuric acid attack on the deputy director of the National Planning Directorate in Sofia, the applicant was arrested by the police on 15 January 2002 on suspicion of being the perpetrator, and was charged. On 19 January 2002 he was detained pending trial; his detention was extended several times on the grounds that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and/or that there was a risk of his absconding or committing further offences. On 5 February 2002 the taxi belonging to the applicant (who maintained that at the time of the attack he had been working a long way from the scene) was seized as physical evidence.   From 9 May 2002, by order of the district prosecutor’s office, the applicant was required to wear a balaclava with eye-holes whenever he left his cell (for example, when moving about or outside the prison premises, at hearings or when receiving visits). He complained to the Chief Public Prosecutor and the Supreme Judicial Council but to no avail. In January and May 2003 he asked the District Court to discontinue the measure, claiming that it was not provided for by domestic law, whereas the prosecution cited the need to conceal Mr Petkov’s face so as not to compromise future identity parades. The court took the prosecution’s arguments into account but, having regard to the time that had elapsed since the measure had first been applied, ordered its discontinuation after the end of the hearing on 22 May 2003. Nevertheless, the police officers continued to compel Mr Petkov to wear the balaclava outside the courtroom. From 3 January to 20 June 2003 he was detained in a single cell in Sofia Prison. He was kept apart from the other prisoners and was unable to take part in any activities with them. He complained to the prison authorities on that account but to no avail.   Amid widespread media coverage, the Sofia District Court acquitted Mr Petkov on 19 June 2003 at 4 p.m. and ordered the return of his personal effects, without mentioning his taxi. He was released the following afternoon. On 11 September 2003 the Sofia district prosecutor said at a press conference that no judge could persuade him that the applicant was not guilty of the crime of which he had been accused. On 31 March 2004 the Sofia City Court upheld the judgment given at first instance and the acquittal was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Cassation in a judgment of 19 January 2005. Not until 26 April 2006, following proceedings he had to institute for this specific purpose, was Mr Petkov able to regain possession of his vehicle, which had certain parts missing and had broken down.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 3 and 13, Mr Petkov complained that he had been forced to wear a balaclava and denied access to activities with other prisoners in Sofia Prison, and that he had had no remedy in respect of those complaints. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3, he further complained that he had not been released immediately on being acquitted and that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. Lastly, he complained under Article 6 § 2 about the district prosecutor’s statements to the press, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the confiscation of his taxi.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 September 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), judges , Pavlina Panova (Bulgaria), ad hoc judge , and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 3 (obligation to wear a balaclava)   Mr Petkov had been forced to wear a balaclava whenever he left his cell during a period of more than one year and one month, although this had not been permitted under Bulgarian law at the time. His awareness of that fact had given rise to a feeling of being treated arbitrarily.   Admittedly, the Court accepted that the arguments put forward by the authorities (to the effect that the measure had been necessary both to protect the applicant from reprisals following his trial, which had attracted substantial media coverage, and to avoid jeopardising ongoing criminal investigations) were not entirely without foundation. In particular, the need to preserve the applicant’s anonymity could have justified the use of a balaclava during his appearances in public while he was being escorted to the courtroom. However, the Court was not persuaded that the application of that measure during the hearings had been justified, since the applicant’s anonymity could have been preserved by other means (such as holding hearings in private or taking measures to restrict the presence of television cameras or photographic equipment). Nor could the Court see any reason for requiring Mr Petkov to wear the balaclava during meetings with his lawyers and relatives or while moving about the prison. Lastly, despite the court decision ordering the police officers to stop using the balaclava after 22 May 2003, the officers had arbitrarily continued to conceal Mr Petkov’s face outside the courtroom until 18 June 2003. The measure in question had in fact served a punitive purpose. Having regard to the psychological effects of the measure on Mr Petkov, the Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 3 on that account.   Article 3 (denial of access to activities with other prisoners)   The period during which Mr Petkov had been denied access to activities with other prisoners had not been excessively long (five and a half months). Furthermore, he had not been in total segregation. He had been able to meet his relatives and his lawyers during his detention and had left his cell on several occasions to go to court. He had not complained that there had been any restrictions on his correspondence or that he had had no outdoor activities. There was no basis for the Court to determine whether the applicant’s deprivation of access to activities with other prisoners had had significant adverse effects on his physical or psychological health. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 on that account.   Article 13   The remedies used by Mr Petkov in seeking to discontinue the use of the balaclava had lacked the requisite effectiveness; no action had been taken on his complaints to the prosecution authorities and the Supreme Judicial Council, and the District Court’s order to the police officers to stop using the balaclava had been only partially heeded. His complaint to the prison authorities about his segregation had likewise had no effect. Furthermore, it had not been established that any remedy could have enabled him to obtain compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained, an essential feature of a remedy that should be available in respect of an alleged Article 3 violation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 5 § 1   The Bulgarian authorities had not adduced any evidence capable of justifying the twenty-four hour delay in executing the decision to release the applicant. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards that period of detention.   Article 5 § 3   Two decisions extending Mr Petkov’s pre-trial detention had been taken purely on the basis of the seriousness of the charges against him (whereas several other decisions had been based on other grounds). That factor on its own could not justify continued detention for one year and five months. The overall period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had therefore not been based on “relevant and sufficient” grounds. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Article 6 § 2   In stating that no judge could persuade him that Mr Petkov was innocent, the public prosecutor had not denied that it was ultimately for the courts to say whether or not the applicant was guilty as charged. The Court noted, however, that that statement had been made by a senior prosecutor at a press conference, against a background of widespread media coverage, a relatively short time after the applicant had been acquitted at first instance and while the case was still pending on an appeal by the prosecution. The statement in question had therefore been capable of creating a public perception that Mr Petkov was guilty of the offence of which he was accused. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2.   Article 1 of Protocol No.1   What had been confiscated from the applicant for more than four years and returned to him damaged was not merely a means of transport but the main tool of his trade. The measure in question had therefore had a potential effect on his professional activities, particularly after his release. The Court accepted that the retention of Mr Petkov’s vehicle as evidence for the duration of the criminal proceedings against him had been necessary. However, that had no longer been the case after the Supreme Court of Cassation’s judgment of 19 January 2005. The delay (one year and three months) in returning the applicant’s taxi to him was attributable solely to an omission on the part of the Bulgarian courts. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1.   Application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The Court awarded 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.