Communicated on 1 September 2014
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 10054/08
Todor Stanislavov DEYANOV
against Bulgaria
lodged on 6 August 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Todor Stanislavov Deyanov, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Sofia.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 2006 the applicant requested the prosecution authorities to investigate the possible tapping of his home telephone by the police.
The prosecution authorities carried out a check-up, during which it was established that between 2 December 1997 and 2 February 1998 the police had tapped the applicant’s home telephone, in the framework of the investigation of the suspected kidnapping of his son. The prosecution concluded that at the time this had been done in accordance with the applicable rules. It was established that after that the police had applied no secret surveillance measures to the applicant.
On that basis the prosecution refused to open formal criminal proceedings against police officers. The refusal was upheld with finality in a decision of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of 2 May 2007.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning secret surveillance have been summarised in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 7-50, 28 June 2007, and Hadzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 22373/04, §§ 23-31, 23 October 2012.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 1, Article 8 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was the victim of unlawful secret surveillance, and of the lack of effective domestic remedies in that respect.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention (see Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 69‑94, 28 June 2007; and Hadzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 22373/04, §§ 33-47, 23 October 2012)?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev, §§ 95-103, and Hadzhiev, §§ 52-56, both cited above)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy