Communicated on 3 December 2020
Published on 21 December 2020
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 37086/16
Boris Traykov ETROPOLSKI against Bulgaria
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The applicants are Bulgarian nationals. The first three applicants are represented before the Court by Mr V.S. Stoyanov, lawyer practising in Pazardzhik. The fourth applicant is represented before the Court by Ms M. Kirova, lawyer practising in Varna.The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.The case of the first applicant, Mr Etropolski
The first applicant, Mr Etropolski, has been serving a life sentence in Pazardzhik Prison since 2004 when he was placed under the “special regime”. He has continued to serve his sentence under the “special regime”, save for the period between 2009 and 2012 when he was placed under the lighter “severe regime”.
(a) First set of compensation proceedings
In 2016 the applicant brought a claim for damages before the Pazardzhik Administrative Court under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SMRDA”), for the period after 2004. He claimed that he had been held in inadequate material conditions of detention and had been prevented from exercising his freedom of religion. He also stated that he had the right to be included in activities aimed at resocialisation and education, apparently without elaborating further. He directed his claim for the period between 1 January 2004 and 1 June 2009 against the Ministry for Justice, and the claim covering the period after 1 June 2009 jointly against the Ministry for Justice and the Chief Directorate for the Execution of Punishments (“the GDIN”).
The Pazardzhik Administrative Court found on 9 June 2016 that there was no possibility for work in the prison where the applicant had been held and that he had not requested to personally be included in educational programmes. He had access to a priest and was not prevented from otherwise exercising his freedom of religion. However, the court found, there was no running water or sanitary facilities in the applicant’s cell. He was allowed to use such common facilities, which were in a dilapidated state, three times a day and had to use a bucket the rest of the time. Furthermore, natural light and fresh air in his cell were scarce. The court awarded the applicant EUR 500 in non-pecuniary damages, to be paid solely by the GDIN and not the Ministry for Justice, for the period after 1 June 2009. The court also dismissed his claim as regards the period before that as directed against the wrong respondent.
Upon an appeal, on 18 July 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court (“the SAC”) reduced the amount awarded to the applicant against the GDIN to EUR 400 and held that he had to pay EUR 50 towards the defendant’s costs. It also found that his claim in respect of the period before 23 July 2010 had been time-barred and the awarded amount only related to the period after that date.
(b) Second set of compensation proceedings
The applicant brought a separate set of proceedings for damages stemming from his inadequate conditions of detention concerning the period after 9 May 2016. On 12 October 2016 the Pazardzhik Administrative Court awarded him EUR 100 in damages. Both parties appealed before the SAC and the proceedings are pending.The case of the second applicant, Mr Draganov
The second applicant, Mr Draganov, is serving a life sentence under the “special regime” since 2003. Until 2007 he was held in Pazardzhik Prison. On 7 March 2007 he was transferred to Burgas Prison where he has been serving his sentence ever since.
In the first half of 2016 he brought two separate claims for damages in relation to the conditions of his detention, one in respect of the time he had spent in Pazardzhik Prison and a second one in respect of the time spent in Burgas Prison.
(a) First set of compensation proceedings
On 10 November 2016 the Pazardzhik Administrative Court dismissed the first claim in respect of the applicant’s detention in Pazardzhik Prison. The court found that the statutory five-year limitation period in respect of the stay in Pazardzhik Prison had expired in 2012, as the applicant had been transferred to Burgas Prison in 2007. The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings in the amount of about EUR 420.
On 12 July 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the lower court’s judgment in its part related to the costs of the proceedings and upheld it in respect of the rest.
(b) Second set of compensation proceedings
On 11 October 2016 the Burgas Administrative Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,360 in damages, payable by the GDIN, as a result of the poor material conditions of his detention in Burgas Prison and the inadequate medical care provided to him there during the period between 2011 and 2016. The court found that the applicant’s claim in respect of the period between 2007 and 2011 was inadmissible as being out of the statutory five-year limitations period.
The SAC confirmed the lower court’s findings on 10 July 2018, other than as regards the complaint about inadequate medical care provided to the applicant. The SAC found that the claim for damages in that connection had not been justified as the applicant had consulted numerous times various doctors, including specialists external to the prison, and had received the treatment he needed.The case of the third applicant, Mr Georgiev
The applicant has been serving a life sentence without commutation in Pazardzhik Prison since 2000.
In late 2015 he brought a claim for damages complaining that the material conditions in his cell had been inadequate and that he had not been included in educational and resocialisation programmes. He indicated the Ministry for Justice as the defendant in respect of the period before 2009 and the GDIN in respect of the period after 2009.
(a) First examination of the compensation claim
The Pazardzhik Administrative Court found in a judgment of 8 February 2016 that the Ministry for Justice was not the proper defendant in respect of the period before 2009 and rejected the applicant’s related claim on that ground. It awarded him EUR 1,000 in respect of his claim against the GDIN, in particular as regards the inadequate material conditions of his detention in the period between 2009 and 2016. The court found that the applicant had not been deprived of cultural and social activities, and had never expressed a wish to either follow educational programmes or to work.
Both parties appealed. On 26 May 2017 the SAC quashed the lower court’s judgment and returned the case to it to examine it in another formation. The SAC found in particular that the applicant had not specified his claim, in terms of alleged facts, period, damage suffered or respondent, and the lower court had to direct him to do so.
(b) Second examination of the compensation claim
The applicant specified his claim on 15 June 2017.
In a ruling of 20 June 2017 the Pazardzhik Administrative Court observed that the applicant had brought two claims for damages in connection with the inadequate conditions in which he had been detained in Pazardzhik Prison serving his sentence. One of the claims was against the Ministry for Justice and it concerned the period between 1 January 2004 and 1 June 2009. The second claim was made against both the Ministry for Justice and the GDIN, in respect of the period between 1 June 2009 and 7 January 2016. The court found that the proper respondents were as follows: the Ministry for Justice as regards the first period and the GDIN as regards the second period. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against that ruling.
Thereafter, the Pazardzhik Administrative Court examined the applicant’s claim on the merits. In a judgment of 8 December 2017, it found that from the start of his serving his sentence the applicant had been continually held in poor material conditions in Pazardzhik Prison, in particular without unrestricted access to running water and a toilet. Furthermore, he had been almost permanently isolated in his cell, save for an hour a day spent in the open air. He had also been unable to practice his religion, or to access the library and further his education. Bearing in mind the length of period involved, the court held that this was in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. It awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 in damages for the whole period requested, namely between 2004 and 2016.
The GDIN and the Ministry for Justice appealed. In a final ruling of 14 January 2020, the SAC held that competent to hear the appeal, following recent legislative changes, was a three-judge formation of the Pazardzhik Administrative Court and returned the case to it.
It would appear that, according to information published on the website of the Pazardzhik Administrative Court, in a final judgment of 16 October 2020 the Pazardzhik Administrative Court upheld the findings of the first-instance judicial formation as regards the facts and the breach of the applicant’s rights not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. However, in respect of the amount of damages, the court held that the Ministry for Justice had to pay the applicant EUR 500 in respect of the period between 2004 and 2009, and the GDIN had to pay the applicant EUR 600 in respect of the period between 2009 and 2016.The case of the fourth applicant, Mr Zhivkov
The applicant has been serving a life sentence without commutation in Varna Prison since 2010. Before that, he had been serving a different prison sentence in the same prison since 2006.
(a) First set of compensation proceedings
In 2015 the applicant brought a claim for damages under section 1 of the SMRDA in connection with the prison authorities’ failure to provide him with liquid food during the period between 2006 and 2015. He claimed that this had caused him serious psychological and physical suffering every time he took a meal, given that as of 2014 he only had one tooth left in his mouth, having lost the rest after the start of his prison sentence. The Varna Administrative Court rejected his claim on 9 June 2015, finding that it was unproven. On 21 July 2015 the court complemented its judgment by ruling that the applicant was liable to pay EUR 1,015 to the GDIN in costs and expenses.
Following the applicant’s appeal, the SAC confirmed the lower court’s judgment on 25 October 2016, save for the part concerning the costs and expenses, which the SAC found that the applicant was not liable for.
(b) Second set of compensation proceedings
In 2015 the applicant brought another set of compensation proceedings under section 1 of the SMRDA, claiming that he had experienced suffering as a result of the failure of the prison authorities to provide him in particular with clothes, shoes and toiletries between 2006 and 2015, as well as cutlery between 2011 and 2015.
On 26 November 2015 the Varna Administrative Court found that the claim was out of time in respect of the period between 2006 and February 2010. As regards the period between 2010 and 2015, ruling on the merits, the Court rejected the claim, finding that the Ministry for Justice was not the proper defendant and the claim should have been directed against the GDIN instead.
Upon an appeal by the applicant, on 16 January 2017 the SAC confirmed the lower court’s judgment and held that the applicant was liable to pay EUR 25 in respect of costs and expenses.Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law in force before amendments in 2017 to the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) has been set out in Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria (nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 114-29, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
The relevant domestic law in force after amendments in 2017 has been set out in the Court’s decision in the case of Dimitar Angelov v. Bulgaria (no. 58400/16, §§ 18-37, 21 July 2020).
COMPLAINTS
All applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they have been held in inadequate conditions of detention while serving their life sentences.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
In respect of the first applicant (application no. 37086/16)
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention, as a result of the material conditions in which he had been detained to serve his sentence in Pazardzhik Prison? In particular, was the amount awarded to him in the first set of proceedings for damages he had brought in that relation compatible with the Court’s practice in comparable cases (see Atanasov and Apostolov v. Bulgaria, (dec), nos. 65540/16 and 22368/17)? Also, was the applicant’s claim for damages in the first set of proceedings examined by the domestic courts in line with the Court’s practice on the question of conditions of detentions representing a continuing situation (see Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, § 199, 27 January 2015)?
In respect of the second applicant (application no. 65495/16)
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention, as a result of the material conditions in which he had been detained to serve his sentence in Burgas Prison? In particular, was the amount awarded to him in the second set of proceedings for damages he had brought in that relation compatible with the Court’s practice in comparable cases (see Atanasov and Apostolov v. Bulgaria, (dec), nos. 65540/16 and 22368/17)? Also, was the applicant’s claim for damages in the second set of proceedings examined by the domestic courts in line with the Court’s practice on the question of conditions of detentions representing a continuing situation (see Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, § 199, 27 January 2015)?
In respect of the third applicant (application no. 73516/16)
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention, as a result in particular of the almost permanent isolation in which he had been detained in the absence of meaningful activities, as well as the inadequate material conditions in Pazardzhik Prison? In particular, was the amount awarded to him in the proceedings for damages he had brought in that relation compatible with the Court’s practice in comparable cases (see Atanasov and Apostolov v. Bulgaria, (dec), nos. 65540/16 and 22368/17)?
The parties are invited to submit to the Court information about the developments in the proceedings for damages brought by the applicant, and in particular a copy of the final judgment delivered in those proceedings.
In respect of the fourth applicant (application no. 23692/17)
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention, as a result in particular of the lack of appropriate food, as well as clothes, basic toiletries, cutlery and other items of first necessity which were allegedly not provided to him in Varna Prison? Was the applicant’s claim for damages in the second set of proceedings examined by the domestic courts in line with the Court’s practice on the question of conditions of detentions representing a continuing situation (see Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, § 199, 27 January 2015)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Period of detention concerned
Represented by
37086/16
23/06/2016
Boris Traykov ETROPOLSKI
1979
Pazardzhik
from 2004 onwards
Valeri Stoyanov STOYANOV
65495/16
10/11/2016
Ivan Yankov DRAGANOV
1975
Burgas
from 2007 onwards
Valeri Stoyanov STOYANOV
73516/16
01/11/2016
Dimitar Petrov GEORGIEV
1965
Pazardzhik
from 2000 onwards
Valeri Stoyanov STOYANOV
23692/17
21/03/2017
Marin Lambev ZHIVKOV
1968
Varna
between 2006 and 2015
Maria Hristova KIROVA
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy