Human
rights news: August 2003
|
1 August 2003 |
:: NEWS :: |
|
|
Four Chamber judgments concerning BulgariaThe European Court of Human Rights releases judgments in the cases of Al Akidi, Hristov, Mihov and Kepenerov |
Related information: List of all ECHR judgments concerning Bulgaria
|
|
|
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. Violation Article 5 §3 - right to a trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial(1) Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (application no. 35825/97) Violation Article 6 §1 Violation Article 5 §4 Pre-trial detention – Length of criminal proceedingsMohamed Nuri Al Akidi, an Iraqi national, was born in 1961. He is married to a Bulgarian national. Vladimir Ivanov Hristov, a Bulgarian national, was born in 1952. Mihail Simeonov Mihov, a Bulgarian national, was born in 1966. All three applicants are in prison in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Mr Al Akidi and Mr Hristov were arrested in September 1993 and remanded in custody on suspicion of using forged documents to obtain excise tax refunds unlawfully. Another person (Mr Ilijkov) was likewise arrested in October 1993. Mr Mihov was arrested and remanded in custody in November 1993 on suspicion of having aided and abetted them and having forged documents. Their applications for bail were repeatedly dismissed. The applicants were convicted on 31 January 1997 and sentenced to 11, 12 and 10 years’ imprisonment respectively. Subsequently they and Mr Ilijkov lodged applications with the European Court of Human Rights. Judgment was given in Mr Ilijkov’s case on 26 July 2001. Relying on Article 5 §3 (right to a trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, all three applicants complained that their detention pending trial had been unjustified and unreasonably long. Mr Hristov and Mr Mihov alleged further, under Article 5 §4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided by a court), that the examination of their appeals against detention had been unfair. Mr Al Akidi and Mr Hristov also complained, under Article 6 §1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), that the criminal proceedings had been unreasonably long. The European Court of Human Rights referred to its judgment in Ilijkov v. Bulgaria (application no. 33977/96) and held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 5 §3 of the Convention in these three cases. It noted that the applicants had remained in pre-trial detention for a period ranging from 3 years and 6 weeks to 3 years, 4 months and 21 days and considered that the grounds on which the detention had been prolonged could not be regarded as sufficient. As in the Ilijkov case, the Court found that the judicial examination of Mr Hristov and Mr Mihov’s detention had not met the requirements of Article 5 §4: in Mr Hristov’s case the domestic courts had refused to examine arguments concerning the persistence of a reasonable suspicion and had disregarded certain arguments relevant to the lawfulness of the detention; moreover, there had been an inequality of arms in both cases. In respect of Mr Al Akidi’s and Mr Hristov’s complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court found – as in the Ilijkov case – that the proceedings had been unreasonably long. They had lasted about five and half years in both cases with significant delays being caused by the authorities. The Court awarded Mr Al Akidi and Mr Mihov 4,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and Mr Hristov EUR 3,000. It awarded Mr Al Akidi and Mr Hristov EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses and Mr Mihov EUR 2,800. (The judgments are available only in English.) (4) Kepenerov v. Bulgaria (no. 39269/98) Violation Article 5 §1 Detention in a psychiatric clinicIvan Raykov Kepenerov, a Bulgarian national, was born in 1939 and lives in Sofia. On 8 February 1995 an inquiry was opened into allegations that he had been harassing the director of the local telephone service and other employees. On 13 February 1996 a prosecutor ordered his forced psychiatric examination and instructed the police to arrest him and bring him to the local mental health centre. The applicant was not informed of those decisions. On 22 February 1996 he was brought to the Sofia mental health centre and, after a short examination, transferred to a psychiatric clinic. He was discharged on 22 March 1996 and lodged complaints on 1 September 1997 with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Minister of the Interior. Relying on Article 5 §1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, Mr Kepenerov alleged that his detention in the psychiatric clinic had been arbitrary and unlawful. The Court noted that Mr Kepenerov had been detained on the orders of a prosecutor who had had no power to order his detention and had not sought a prior medical assessment of the need for his confinement. Nor had there been any possibility of obtaining an independent review of its lawfulness. Accordingly, the confinement had had no basis in domestic law which, moreover, did not provide the requisite safeguards against arbitrariness. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 2,200 for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. |