Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)169[1]
Boychev and others against Bulgaria
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 77185/01, judgment of 27/01/2011, final on 27/04/2011)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)1058E);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)1058E);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
ACTION REPORT Case Boychev and others v. Bulgaria
Application No 77185/01, Judgment of 27/01/2011, Final on 27/04/2011
Convention violation found
This case concerns the interference with the right of the applicants (followers of the Unification Church founded by Sun Myung Moon) to manifest their religion due to the interruption of a religious meeting in 1997 and to the search and seisure of documents and other items conducted by the police in the absence of legal basis in domestic law meeting the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention (violation of Article 9). It also concerns the lack of effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 9).
Individual measures
a) The compensation awarded was transferred to the applicants’ account on 06.07.2011.
b) The case concerns the police intervention at a religious meeting on 6 April 1997 of the applicants’ organization.
According to the most recent information we have from the Blagoevgrad District Court the applicants did not avail themselves of the possibility to request the restitution of the remaining seized objects (books and video recordings) after April 2001 (when was delivered the last instance court’s decision in their case at domestic level).
No individual measures seem to be appropriate in this case
General measures
a) legislative measures and current judicial practice
According to the Court’s judgment, at the relevant time the public prosecutor had under Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an almost unrestricted discretionary power, a situation which was incompatible with the minimum degree of protection required by the rule of law.
Secondly, Bulgarian law was unclear as to the possibility of holding a religious meeting when the organisation in question had not been registered (there was a discrepancy between law and practice, so that the applicants could not have known what conduct to adopt). The interference in question had thus lacked legal basis meeting the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention.
Article 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which concerned the obligation for prosecutors to take measures in order to prevent a crime has been revoked in 2003. Latter, in 2005 a new Code of Criminal Procedure has been adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament which does not contain such provision.
On the other hand, in a judgment of May 2001, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed its stance that religious associations do not need to be registered in order to hold religious meetings (see § 34 of the Boychev judgment).
Finally, a new Religious Denominations Act has been adopted which provides that a judicial body - the Sofia City Court - and no longer the executive, is competent to register religious communities wishing to obtain legal personality.
The current legal framework is in full compliance with the requirements of the Convention.
As regards the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the authorities consider that following to changes in the legislative framework and practice presented above and the conclusions in the judgment delivered given by the European Court, the domestic courts will not fail to comply with the Convention requirements while examining similar complaints in the future.
b) publication and dissemination of the judgment
The translation of the judgment will be available soon on the Ministry of justice website at /
The translation of the judgment will be sent to the competent national authorities.
No other measures inc. any legislative amendments seem to be necessary for execution of the judgment.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy