European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 23810/05
by Biser Nikolov MANOLOV
against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 June 2005,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Biser Nikolov Manolov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Kyustendil.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 1994 the applicant was remanded in custody in the investigation detention facilities in Kjustendil and Sofia, and was later transferred to Pazardzhik Prison. In a final judgment of 4 December 1999 of the Supreme Court of Cassation the applicant was found guilty of several burglaries and a murder and was sentenced to ‘life imprisonment without commutation’.

On 27 January 2000 the applicant was moved to Bobov Dol Prison where he is currently serving his sentence.

The applicant alleged that the conditions of detention in Bobov Dol Prison were unbearable and amounted to humiliating and degrading treatment. The applicant submitted in particular that: (1) the food was substandard and insufficient in quantity (some meals contained pieces of plastic items, hairs, fur; the meat meals often did not contain meat at all); (2) the plates in which the food was served were dirty and greasy; (3) the drinking water was muddy; (4) he was not provided with adequate sleeping accommodation as there were iron pieces bulging from the bed-spring which made the bed very uncomfortable and the bedding provided was unclean; (5) the taking of a shower (20 minutes per week) and his visits to the doctor were counted as part of his 1-hour daily outdoor activities; (6) when he was taken out of the cell he was always handcuffed; (7) the yard in which he took his daily outdoor exercise did not have toilet facilities and he could not relieve his needs before the end of the exercise period; the inmates were not provided with any waterproof clothing when spending time outside; (8) the guard dogs were placed several meters from his cell’s window and with their constant barking at night deprived him of sleep; (9) other inmates and the applicant himself killed rats in the cells; (10) the temperature in the cell did not rise above 12^oC and the fuel (coal) provided in the winter season was insufficient; (11) there was no heating in the bathroom and the prisoners were freezing cold when taking showers in the winter; (12) the cell lacked sufficient daylight; (13) for a long time the floor of his cell was left riddled with holes and without linoleum; (14) the hygiene products provided for the toilet in his cell were insufficient (two spoonfuls of chlorine per month) which made the smell unbearable as the cell was separated from the toilet only by a screen. The applicant submitted that he had sent numerous letters to the prison administration or the responsible senior public officials complaining about the conditions of detention but with almost no result.

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

A.  Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in Bobov Dol Prison

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in Bobov Dol Prison.

Article 3 of the Convention provides:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint 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.  Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the sentence of ‘life imprisonment without commutation’

The applicant complained that his ongoing detention under a sentence of ‘life imprisonment without commutation’ amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention to Article 3 of the Convention.

Article 3 of the Convention provides:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint 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.

C.  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 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 under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of detention in Bobov Dol Prison and the sentence of ‘life imprisonment without commutation’;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President