INTERIM resolution DH (99) 352
HUMAN RIGHTS
APPLICATION No. 30381/96
MIRONOV AGAINST BULGARIA
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 June 1999
at the 672nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the report drawn up on 1 December 1998 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 5 October 1994 by a Bulgarian national, Mr Vassil Mironov, against Bulgaria;
Whereas on 12 January 1999 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 of the Convention;
Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 23 October 1997, the applicant complained of the excessive length of his detention on remand, of the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings brought against him and of the unjustified supervision by the prison authorities of his application form sent to the Commission under Article 25;
Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and, by twenty-three votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
Whereas at the 672nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 9 June 1999, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention; that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention,
Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case;
Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article 32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy