FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23692/17
Marin Lambev ZHIVKOV
against Bulgaria
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 October 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 March 2017,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Ms M.H. Kirova, a lawyer practising in Varna.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the conditions in which he had been serving his prison sentence between 2006 and 2015, were communicated to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as a result of the inadequate conditions of detention in which the applicant had been serving his prison sentence in Varna Prison, in particular the lack of appropriate food and other items of first necessity between 2006 and 2015. They offered to pay the applicant 4,000 euros and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, 27 January 2015, and Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 213-14, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 November 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(conditions of detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
23692/17
21/03/2017
Marin Lambev ZHIVKOV
1968
Kirova Maria Hristova
Varna
20/07/2021
20/08/2021
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.