European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Kiril Todorov FILIPOV v Bulgaria - 12098/05 [2010] ECHR 1738 (5 October 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1738.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1738
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
12098/05
by Kiril Todorov FILIPOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait
Maruste,
President,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 March 2005,
Having regard to the partial decision of 15 September 2009,
Having regard to the Government's request to strike the case out of the list of cases and the text of their unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the application,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Kiril Todorov Filipov, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Sofia. He was represented before the Court by Ms S. Stefanova and Mr M. Ekimdzhiev, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant was charged with theft. On 3 September 2004 the Plovdiv District Court ordered his remand in custody. Initially, the applicant was detained at the Regional Investigation Service in Plovdiv. In October 2004 he was transferred to Plovdiv Prison. On an unspecified date in November 2004 and on 12 January 2005 the applicant sent two letters to his defence counsel from Plovdiv Prison. The staff of the prison put a stamp “inspected” on the envelope of each letter prior to dispatching them to their destination.
On 27 October 2004 the prosecuting authorities indicted the applicant and he was brought to trial.
On 26 October 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal against his continued detention on the ground that his health had deteriorated. The appeal was examined at a regular court hearing on 9 December 2004. Taking into account the medical documents presented by the applicant, and also finding that no danger of his absconding or reoffending existed, the Plovdiv District Court ordered his release on bail.
On 14 December 2004 the prosecution appealed against this decision. The applicant was not informed of the appeal and could not comment on it. In a closed session, on 27 December 2004 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the District Court's decision and ordered the applicant's continued detention finding, in view of his previous convictions, that he was dangerous.
On 13 January 2005 the applicant filed a new appeal against the continued detention. He pointed out that his health had deteriorated and that he could not receive adequate medical care in prison. On 10 February 2005 the Plovdiv District Court appointed a medical expert to examine the applicant.
On 1 March 2005 the Plovdiv District Court convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. At the same hearing, on the basis of the opinion of the medical expert, it dismissed the applicant's appeal against the continued detention, finding that he could be adequately treated in prison. On 1 April 2005 that decision was upheld by the Plovdiv Regional Court.
The criminal proceedings against the applicant continued until 11 January 2006, when a sentence of three years' imprisonment against him entered into force.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the courts had not decided speedily on his appeals against the continued detention and that in examining his appeal of 26 October 2004 the Plovdiv Regional Court had held a closed hearing and had not allowed him an opportunity to comment on the prosecution's appeal against the decision of the Plovdiv District Court to release him.
2. The applicant also complained, relying on Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention, that the correspondence with his legal counsel had been monitored by the administration of Plovdiv Prison.
THE LAW
The applicant raised several complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads:
“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.”
Furthermore, the applicant complained of the control of his correspondence in prison. The Court is of the view that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention, which reads:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
On 15 September 2009 the Court communicated those complaints to the Government.
On 18 February 2010 the Court received a unilateral declaration from the Government made with a view to resolving the application. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration, in particular, read:
“[...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] its acknowledgment of the failure of the domestic courts to examine speedily the applicant's appeals against the continued detention, to hold an oral hearing and guarantee adversarial proceedings, as requires Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, and the unjustified interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence [under] Article 8 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the amount of [...] EUR 3,200 which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court's case-law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian [levs] at the exchange rate applicable at the time of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the [Convention]. [...]
The Government, therefore, request that this application be struck out of the Court's list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention. [...]”
The applicant did not comment on the Government's declaration.
The Court recalls that Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention enables it to strike a case out of its list where:
“[...] for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Having regard to the acknowledgements contained in the Government's declaration, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present complaints, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(c).
In view of its extensive and clear case law on the issues raised in the present case, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001; Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35436/97, 31 July 2003; Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, 30 January 2003; Bochev v. Bulgaria no. 73481/01, 13 November 2008; and Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, 22 May 2008), 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). Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list.
For the reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
