1176th meeting – 10 July 2013
Appendix 7
(Item H46-1)
Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)138
Marin Kostov against Bulgaria
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 13801/07, judgment of 24/07/2012, final on 24/10/2012)
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
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 violation established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is 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 the 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(2013)715);
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 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