European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

(Applications nos. 2727/19 and 6 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

4 June 2020

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

In the case of Ivanov and Others 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 14 May 2020,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in 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 applicants were represented by the lawyers named in the appended table.

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 applicant in application no. 7036/19 also raised other complaints under Article 3.

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 ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained of the allegedly inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 3

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

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 a violation 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 conditions of the applicants’ detention were inadequate.

11.  The applicants’ complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 of the Convention.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  The applicants also complained of the alleged lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 13

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

14.  All of the applicants in the present case brought claims for damages in relation to the poor conditions of their detention; these either were still pending at the time of the introduction of the new compensatory remedy under the new section 284 of the 2009 Act on 7 February 2017, or were lodged after that. By paragraph 49 of the transitional and concluding provisions of the Act amending the 2009 Act, pending claims for damages in relation to poor conditions of detention - which were previously examined under section 1(1) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) - were to be dealt with in the manner laid down by section 284(1) of the amended 2009 Act (see Atanasov and Apostolov, cited above, § 28).

15.  As a result, the claims brought by the applicants in the present case were examined, at least on appeal, before the Supreme Administrative Court, in line with the requirements of the new compensatory remedy (see Atanasov and Apostolov, cited above, §§ 58-65). All of the applicants, with the exception of the applicant in application no. 17773/19, Mr Popov, were awarded damages. It follows that all of them had at their disposal an effective remedy with respect to the conditions of their detention.

16.  The mere fact that the claim of one of the applicants, Mr Popov, was dismissed on the facts does not detract from that conclusion. The right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention is not to be interpreted as a right to a favourable outcome for the person using it (see, among other authorities, Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v. Sweden, 6 February 1976, § 50, Series A no. 20). The conclusion is not nullified by the low sums awarded to the other applicants either. The mere fact that the compensation awarded to an applicant following the use of an otherwise effective compensatory remedy is too low does not in itself call into question the effectiveness of that remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Delle Cave and Corrado v. Italy, no. 14626/03, §§ 43 and 45, 5 June 2007, and Simaldone v. Italy, no. 22644/03, § 71, 31 March 2009).

17.  It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

18.  The applicant in application no. 7036/19, Mr Todorov, also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

19.  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.

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

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

21.  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.”

22.  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 applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in applications nos. 7036/19, 9835/19, 12559/19, 17168/19, 17773/19 and 21744/19.

23.  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 under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of the applicants’ detention, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3.      Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 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 for non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that the respondent State is to pay directly to the applicants’ representatives the amounts 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 applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in applications nos. 7036/19, 9835/19, 12559/19, 17168/19, 17773/19 and 21744/19.

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)