Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)151[1]
Svetoslav Hristov against Bulgaria
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 36794/03, judgment of 13 January 2011, final on 13 April 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)923E);
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)923E);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46§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 of Svetoslav Hristov v. Bulgaria, application no. 36794/03,
judgment of 13 January 2011, final on 13 April 2011
The case concerns several violations of Article 5 of the Convention, related to detention of the applicant for six days in 2003:
1) violation of Article 5 § 1(c) due to a breach of the principle of legal certainty as
domestic law did not prohibit explicitly two consecutive periods of prosecutor-ordered detention for up to three days each on the basis of two separate provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974;
2) violation of the right to be brought promptly before a judge (Article 5 § 3) because of
the accumulation of the two consecutive periods of three-day detention mentioned above before the applicant was brought before a judge;
3) violation of Article 5 § 4 because of the lack of a possibility of judicial control of the lawfulness of prosecutor-ordered detention;
4) violation of Article 5 § 5 because of the unavailability in domestic law of an enforceable right to compensation for detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5.
1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES
The applicant has been released on bail on 31 October 2003 (§ 13 of the judgment). The European Court awarded him EUR 4,000 in just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, plus costs and expenses. The Government paid these amounts on
01/06/2011 and is of the view that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violations of the applicant’s rights.
2) GENERAL MEASURES
Violations of Article 5 §§ 1(c) and 3: These violations resulted from the application of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974, which has subsequently been superseded by new legislation. The new Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since 2006, provides for prosecutor-ordered detention only where it is necessary to ensure an accused’s appearance before the court deciding on his detention on remand (see Article 64 § 2). Such detention cannot last for more than 72 hours.
The Government is thus of the view that the specific problem giving rise to the violations of Article 5 §§ 1(c) and 3 in the case, namely the existence of two separate provisions on prosecutor-ordered detention and the possibility of accumulating periods of detention under both of them, has been solved.
Violations of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5: The unavailability of judicial review of prosecutor- ordered detention under Bulgarian law is being examined by the Committee of Ministers in the Kandzhov group (application no. 68294/01). The lack of any enforceable right to compensation for detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5 is being examined in the Yankov group (application no. 39084/97).
In view of the considerations above, namely that some of the deficiencies identified by the European Court have been solved and the remaining ones are being examined in other groups of cases, the Government is of the view that the present case can be closed.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy