1176e réunion – 10 juillet 2013
Annexe 7
(Point H46-1)
Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)138
Marin Kostov contre Bulgarie
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête no 13801/07, arrêt du 24/07/2012, définitif le 24/10/2012)
(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 10 juillet 2013,
lors de la 1176e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées « la Convention » et « la Cour »),
Vu l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée ;
Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire :
- de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum ; et
- de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;
Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée ;
Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)715) ;
S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
ACTION REPORT (anglais seulement)
Case Marin Kostov against Bulgaria, Application No. 13801/07
Judgment of 24/07/2012, final on 24/10/2012
Convention violation found
This case concerns the disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression due to his disciplinary punishment (14 days solitary confinement) for having made defamatory statements in his complaints to the prosecutor about the actions of prison officials (violation of Article 10).
2. Individual measures
The compensation awarded to the applicant has been transferred to the applicant’s account.
No further individual measures are necessary for execution of the judgment.
3. General measures
a) Legislative measures
According to Rule 46 of the regulations implementing the Execution of Punishments Act from 1969, in force at the relevant time, when a prisoner’s writings and appeals contain defaming and offensive language he may be subject to disciplinary and criminal punishment.
On 1 June 2009, this Act and the regulations implementing it were superseded by the new Execution of Punishments and Detention in Custody Act (the “EPDCA”). The new provision of section 90 (6) of EPDCA expressly provides that prisoners may not be subject to disciplinary punishment because of having made a request or lodged a complaint. Thus, the legal ground on which the applicant’s disciplinary punishment was based does not exist anymore.
At present, confinement in isolation cell of up to 14 days may be imposed by the prison governor; while the governors of penitentiary hostels may impose confinement of up to 5 days. The General Director of the General Directorate “Execution of Punishments” may impose all punishments described in section 101 of EPDCA (section 104 EPDCA). The orders for disciplinary punishments issued by the prison governor may be appealed before the General Director, while the orders of the General Director may be appealed before the Minister of Justice. The appeal does not have an automatic suspensive effect, but the General Director or the Minister of Justice may decide to suspend the execution of the disciplinary punishment (section 110 EPDCA). The orders imposing solitary confinement to a disciplinary cell are subject to appeal before the district court (section 111 EPDCA). The district court has to examine the appeal within 3 days, in the presence of the detainee. The appeal does not have an automatic suspensive effect, but the court may decide to suspend the execution of the disciplinary punishment.
b) Publication and dissemination of the judgment
The translation of the judgment will be available soon on the Ministry of Justice website at and will be sent promptly to the competent authorities after it is ready.
A summary of the judgment is available on the website of the National Institute of Justice and on the website of the Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights Foundation.
The judgment in English and a summary in Bulgarian have been sent to the General Directorate for Execution of Punishments and the District Court – Levski through a letter drawing their attention on the main conclusions of the ECHR’s judgment.
By letter from the General Directorate for Execution of Punishments, the Bulgarian Government has been informed that all the district and territorial services will be informed of the ECHR judgment within the planned activities of the year. Instructions have been given to the heads of all prisons for the case to be reviewed and discussed and to take appropriate measures to prevent similar violations, and strictly comply with the requirements of the Convention.
4. Conclusions
In conclusion, the government considers that the measures taken will prevent new similar violations and that Bulgaria has complied with its obligation under 46 §1 of the Convention. The government therefore looks forward to the Committee’s decision to close the examination of this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy