FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 18382/05
by Plamen Todorov RADKOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 April 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Plamen Todorov Radkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Lovech Prison.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Conditions in the Ruse Investigation Service detention centre
On 26 May 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed murder. He was placed in the detention centre at the Ruse Investigation Service, where he remained until 8 March 2000.
The applicant lived in a dirty cell, with insufficient ventilation and lacking access to sunlight. The detainees were allowed to go to the toilet three times a day; outside the set time for toilet visits they had to use plastic buckets. There was no possibility for outdoor activity.
On 27 September 2004 the applicant brought an action for damages under the State Responsibility for Damage Act against the Ministry of Justice for 900 Bulgarian levs (BGN) alleging that the conditions in the Ruse Investigation Service detention centre had been miserable and humiliating.
In a judgment of 18 February 2005 the Ruse District Court granted the action partially. Accepting that the conditions of detention had indeed caused him humiliation and suffering, it awarded the applicant BGN 500 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 255).
The Ministry of Justice filed an appeal against this judgment. The applicant did not appeal, as he was satisfied with the outcome.
In a final judgment of 30 September 2005 the Ruse Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment.
2. Conditions in Lovech Prison
On 8 March 2000 the applicant was transferred to Lovech Prison. He is still detained there. For an unspecified period of time he lived in an individual cell measuring 4 square metres. It appears that he was subsequently transferred to a bigger cell. The cells were not equipped with toilet facilities or sinks and the inmates were allowed to go to the toilet and to wash three times a day, for ten minutes each time. Outside those periods they had to use a plastic bucket, which they had to empty themselves when they went to the toilet. According to the applicant, the food served in the prison was of bad quality.
On 27 October 2004 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Justice under the State Responsibility for Damage Act. He sought BGN 3,000 in damages, alleging that he had suffered distress and humiliation as a result of the poor conditions of detention.
On 8 July 2005 the Lovech District Court allowed the claim partially. It found that having to use buckets in the cell for toilet needs amounted to inhuman treatment, which was prohibited by the Bulgarian Constitution and Article 3 of the Convention. It found, on the other hand, that the applicant's allegations that the food had been inadequate were unsubstantiated.
In assessing the amount of damages to award, the domestic court held that:
[The claimant] failed to establish the extent to which [he was] psychologically affected and suffered mentally, because not every unpleasant sensation or feeling, nor every mental depression can give rise to an entitlement to receive compensation for non-pecuniary damage.”
Furthermore, it held that:
“There is no indication that [the applicant's] physical or psychological health deteriorated as a result of the defendant's unlawful failure to take the necessary measures.”
It also stressed that the claim concerned a period of substantial duration (from 8 March 2000 to 27 October 2004). On the basis of these considerations the Lovech District Court awarded the applicant BGN 250 (EUR 130). It held that he had to pay a court fee in the amount of BGN 150, representing a percentage of the rejected part of the claim.
The applicant filed an appeal claiming a higher sum in damages. He requested the Lovech Regional Court to order the defendant to pay interest, as the District Court had failed to make such an order.
In a final judgment of 6 January 2006 the Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment. It did not discuss the applicant's request for interest to be awarded.
Subsequently, the applicant requested that the judgment of the Lovech Regional Court be supplemented with a finding as regards the payment of interest. The request was dismissed on unspecified grounds.
3. The applicant's attempt to obtain a re-opening of the criminal proceedings
In a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 27 November 2003 the applicant was convicted on a number of charges, including for two robberies accompanied by murders, and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The fairness of these proceedings was the subject of the applicant's first application to the Court, no. 27795/03, in relation to which on 3 February 2009 the Court adopted a partial decision.
On 11 November 2004 the applicant requested the Chief Public Prosecutor to initiate a re-opening of the criminal proceedings, alleging that the courts had decided wrongly. In a final decision of 5 April 2005 the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the request, as it found that no grounds for a re‑opening existed.
B. Reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”)
The CPT has not visited Lovech Prison. During its visits to other prisons, the Committee has noted the use of buckets for sanitary needs by prisoners. Describing this practice as “unacceptable”, it has recommended its discontinuation (see, for example, in the 2006 report, the relevant part on Sofia Prison, and in the 2002 report, the relevant parts on Burgas and Pleven Prisons).
COMPLAINTS
1. In his first letter to the Court the applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the living conditions in the detention centre at the Ruse Investigation Service. He also complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, that he had not been able to obtain the re-opening of the criminal proceedings against him.
2. In a letter dated 10 April 2006 the applicant complained under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention about the living conditions in Lovech Prison and contended that the sum of damages awarded by the Lovech District Court had been inadequate. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts had been partial because they had rejected his claim, and that the Lovech Regional Court had failed to examine his request for interest to be awarded. In a letter of 15 January 2008 the applicant further argued that the judgments of the Lovech District Court and the Lovech Regional Court had violated Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
3. In the same letter of 15 January 2008 the applicant also complained, relying on Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the requirement to pay a court fee for the rejected part of his claim in respect of the conditions in Lovech Prison had obstructed his access to a court.
THE LAW
A. Complaints about the conditions of detention in Lovech Prison and the lack of any effective remedy in that respect
The applicant complained that the living conditions in Lovech Prison were miserable and humiliating and that he did not have any effective remedy in that respect. The Court considers that the complaints fall to be examined under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 13 reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Court considers that on the basis of the case file it cannot determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
B. The remainder of the applicant's complaints
The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints as submitted by him. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application must also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning the conditions of detention in Lovech Prison and the lack of any effective remedy in that respect;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekRait Maruste
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy