|
The applicant, Emil Georgiev Stoichkov, is a Bulgarian national, born
in 1958 and presently detained in Bobov Dol Prison (Bulgaria).
Between 1975 and 1988 the applicant was convicted of theft, deserting
military duties and possession of narcotic drugs. He left Bulgaria in
1988. In October 1989 he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for
rape and attempted rape. In 1990, the applicant settled in the United
States of America, where he lived until 1999. He returned to Bulgaria
and was arrested and taken to prison to serve his sentence in February
2000.
The applicant complained that his imprisonment in February 2000 was unlawful
and arbitrary, that he could not take judicial proceedings to obtain his
release and that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation.
He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).
The European Court of Human Rights observed that there was no indication
that the applicant had waived his right to appear and defend himself.
He should, therefore, have had the opportunity to have the proceedings
against him reopened and the merits of the rape charges against him determined
in his presence. Since 1 January 2000 Bulgarian law had expressly provided
for such a possibility. However, when the applicant requested that his
case be reopened - approximately one year after his arrest - the Supreme
Court of Cassation refused, essentially on the ground that the case-file
of the original proceedings had been destroyed in 1997, which, in its
view, rendered a rehearing impossible in practice. The applicant subsequently
requested the restoration of the case?file, but had apparently received
no reply to his request. He was thus deprived of the possibility to obtain
from a court, which had heard him, a fresh determination of the merits
of the charges on which he was convicted.
The Court therefore considered that the criminal proceedings against the
applicant, coupled with the impossibility to obtain a fresh determination
of the charges against him from a court which had heard him, were manifestly
contrary to the principles embodied in Article 6. Therefore, while his
initial deprivation of liberty in February 2000 might be deemed justified
under Article 5 § 1 (a), having been effected for the purpose of enforcing
a lawful sentence, it ceased to be so after 19 July 2001, when the Supreme
Court of Cassation refused to reopen the proceedings. The Court therefore
held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.
The Court also noted that the legality of the applicant's arrest was not
clear and needed to be determined by a court. However, there was no provision
expressly providing for judicial review of such issues and no general
habeas corpus procedure applying to all kinds of deprivation of liberty.
The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation
of Article 5 § 4.
In addition, finding that Bulgarian law did not provide the applicant
with an enforceable right to compensation, the Court held, unanimously,
that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.
The Court observed that the most appropriate form of redress for the violation
of Article 5 §1(a) found in the applicant's case would be to reopen the
proceedings and retry the applicant in keeping with all the requirements
of a fair trial. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
top
|
|