Communicated on 26 May 2014
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 79828/12
Kiril Dimitrov ANDREEV
against Bulgaria
lodged on 5 December 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kiril Dimitrov Andreev, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Pleven. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Arnaudov, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In a decision of 7 June 2012, which was final, the Sofia District Court approved a plea agreement between the applicant and the prosecution, by means of which the applicant acknowledged to having committed the offence of unlawfully possessing firearms and ammunitions and accepted a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The domestic court held expressly that it discontinued the applicant’s detention on remand, which had been ordered earlier. The court hearing ended at 5.16 p.m.
Instead of being released, as required by Article 309 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see below), the applicant was brought to the Sofia Investigative Service, and from there to a police station, where he remained throughout the night and the next day. In the morning of 9 June 2012 he was transferred to the city of Pleven, where, by an order issued at 12.10 p.m., he was formally placed in police custody. That latter order concerned a different set of criminal proceedings against the applicant.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 383 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assimilates the legal effects of a plea agreement which has been approved by the courts to those of a judgment which has entered into force.
By Article 309 § 2 of the same Code, where the accused receives, inter alia, a suspended sentence by the courts, he is to be released in the courtroom and any detention on remand ordered earlier is to be discontinued.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that his detention between 7 and 9 June 2012 had no basis in domestic law and was not covered by any of the exceptions to the right to liberty provided for by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant also relies on Article 6 § 1.
2. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains in addition that he did not have the possibility to contest his allegedly unlawful detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his deprivation of liberty between 5.16 p.m. on 7 June 2012 and 12.10 p.m. on 9 June 2012 “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and did it fall within any of the subparagraphs of Article 5 § 1?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention between 5.16 p.m. on 7 June 2012 and 12.10 p.m. on 9 June 2012, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy