European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF CHOBANOV AND KOYRUSHKI v. BULGARIA

(Applications nos. 53942/16 and 47398/17)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

4 June 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Chobanov and Koyrushki v. Bulgaria,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,
          Mārtiņš Mits,
          Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 30 April 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in two applications against Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The applicant in application no. 53942/16 was represented by Mr V. Stoyanov, a lawyer practising in Pazardzhik.

3.  The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicants complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention of the allegedly inadequate conditions of their detention and of the alleged lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained principally of the allegedly inadequate conditions of their detention and of the alleged lack of an effective remedy in that respect. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 3

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

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”

8.  The Court notes that the applicants were detained in poor conditions. The details of their detention are set out in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149-59, 10 January 2012).

9.  In its pilot judgment in the case of Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, 27 January 2015, the Court already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court finds no fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the complaints at issue in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, it considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

11.  The Court further notes that both applicants brought proceedings under section 1(1) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988, seeking damages in relation to the allegedly poor conditions of their detention. The domestic courts dismissed their claims and ordered them to bear the costs of the proceedings. The applicant in application no. 53942/16, Mr Chobanov, was ordered to pay about 3,567 Bulgarian levs (BGN, - 1,824 euros (EUR)), comprising the defendant authority’s legal representation costs (EUR 1,568) and the costs of the proceedings (EUR 256). The applicant in application no. 47398/17, Mr Koyrushki, was ordered to pay BGN 1,650 (EUR 844), comprising the defendant authority’s legal representation costs (EUR 639) and the costs of the proceedings (EUR 205).

12.  The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires that the rules governing the costs of the proceedings do not place an excessive burden on the inmate, where his or her claim about the conditions of detention is justified (see Neshkov and Others, cited above, § 184). It refers to its finding above that the applicants were kept in poor conditions of detention (see paragraph 10 above). Accordingly, at the relevant time they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

13.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose breaches of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

14.  The applicant in application no. 47398/17, Mr Koyrushki, also raised other complaints relating to the conditions of his detention under Article 3 of the Convention.

15.  The Court has examined those complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

16.  It follows that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“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.”

18.  Having regard to the documents in its possession and its settled case‑law (see, in particular, Muršić, cited above, § 181) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and to reject the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction in application no. 47398/17. In particular, the Court notes that the applicant’s lawyer in application no. 47398/17 did not submit any documents showing that the applicant had actually paid the costs of the domestic proceedings or that any enforcement proceedings had been instituted against him. In the absence of such documents, the Court sees no basis on which to award pecuniary damage.

19.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of the applicants’ detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 47398/17 inadmissible;

3.      Holds that these complaints disclose breaches of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention;

4.      Holds

(a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that in application no. 47398/17 the respondent State is to pay directly to the applicant’s representative the amount set out in the appended table in respect of costs and expenses;

(c)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction in application no. 47398/17.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 June 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Liv Tigerstedt                                                     Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Acting Deputy Registrar                                                            President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)