CASE OF RADOSLAV POPOV v. BULGARIA
(Application no. 58971/00)
2 November 2006
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Radoslav Popov v. Bulgaria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr M. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 October 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
B. The applicant's detention
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Grounds for detention
B. The State Responsibility for Damage Act
The relevant domestic law and practice under sections 1 and 2 of the SRDA has been summarised in the cases of Iovchev v. Bulgaria (no. 41211/98, §§ 76 80, 2 February 2006) and Hamanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44062/98, §§ 56-60, 8 April 2004).
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
In particular, he complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that when he was arrested on 24 September 1998 he was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. In substance, he also complained of the length of the proceedings and the resulting detention on remand during that period.
The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the courts failed to rule on the appeals against his detention.
Lastly, he complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he did not have an enforceable right to seek compensation for being a victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5.
The applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his Convention complaints.
The relevant part of Article 5 of the Convention provides:
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”
A. Scope of the case
1. Article 6 of the Convention
2. Article 13 of the Convention
1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
The Government's objection must therefore be rejected.
2. Compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention
It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
The Government's objection must therefore be upheld in respect of this complaint.
Considering that he introduced his complaints on 24 April 2000, the Court finds that the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
The Government's objection in these respects must therefore be dismissed.
3. Complaints under Article 5 §§ 3-5 of the Convention
1. Complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the applicant's detention on remand was unjustified and unreasonably lengthy
2. Complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
3. Complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention
There has, therefore, also been a violation of that provision.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 November 2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen