RESOLUTION DH (98) 203
CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF 20 MARCH 1997
IN THE CASE OF LUKANOV AGAINST BULGARIA
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 1998
at the 637th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),
Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Lukanov case delivered on 20 March 1997 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 21915/93) against Bulgaria, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 September 1992 under Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Andrei Karlov Lukanov, a Bulgarian national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint relating to the lawfulness of his detention on remand on suspicion of having misappropriated public funds when he was Deputy Prime Minister;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commissionon 11 March 1996;
Whereas in its judgment of 20 March 1997 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention and that no other separate issue arose under Article 18 of the Convention;
-
- held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant's widow and two children within three months the following sums, to be converted into Bulgarian leva at the rate applicable on the date of settlement
-
(i) 40 000 French francs, in compensation for non-pecuniary damage;
-
(ii) 13 456 US dollars and 7 067 French francs for legal costs and expenses;
-
- held that simple interest at the following annual rates should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement: 4 % per annum in relation to the sums awarded in French francs, and 5 % per annum in relation to the sum awarded in US dollars;
-
- dismissed the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;
-
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 of the Convention;
-
Having invited the Government of Bulgaria to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 20 March 1997, having regard to Bulgaria's obligation under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Bulgaria gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment, this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 19 June 1997, within the time-limit set, the Government of Bulgaria paid the applicant's widow and two children the sums provided for in the judgment of 20 March 1997,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Bulgaria that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (98) 203
Information provided by the Government of Bulgaria
during the examination of the Lukanov case
by the Committee of Ministers
The report of the European Commission of Human Rights and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights have been translated into Bulgarian and published in the quarterly "Human Rights", a publication of the Bulgarian centre of Human Rights (Nos. 1 and 2, 1997).
The translation of the judgment was disseminated, accompanied with a circular letter of the Minister of Justice (No. RD-02-08-5) of 26 January 1998, to the regional prosecutors and presidents of regional courts.
The Government considers that the measures adopted will allow Bulgarian prosecutors and judges to comply with the requirements of the Convention when deciding on the validity of measures depriving of liberty, and, consequently, to avoid violations similar to that found in the present case.
In view of the above, the Government is of the opinion that Bulgaria has complied with its obligations under Article 53 of the Convention as regards this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy