FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 8321/11 Stoyan Todorov TODOROV against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 February 2013 as a Chamber composed of:

Ineta Ziemele , President , David Thór Björgvinsson , Päivi Hirvelä ,

George Nicolaou , Ledi Bianku , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , Vincent A. De Gaetano , judges , and Lawrence Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 February 2011,

Having regard to the decision of 17 February 2011 to grant an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the decision of 18 April 2011 to lift the interim measure,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Stoyan Todorov Todorov , is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1974 and is currently in the Sofia Prison Hospital , serving a four-year prison sentence. He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Runevski , a lawyer practising in Sofia . The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their former Agent, Ms N. Nikolova , of the Ministry of Justice.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. The criminal proceedings against the applicant

3. Between 2006 and 2009 the applicant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment in at least six different sets of criminal proceedings.

4. In March 2007 the Karlovo District Court passed a cumulative sentence of two years ’ imprisonment for several of the applicant ’ s convictions which had become final in 2006. After other convictions had become final in 2008 or 2009, the same court passed a cumulative sentence of four years ’ imprisonment.

5. In the period between 2005 and 2010 the applicant ’ s ex-wife, daughter and relatives lodged a number of complaints with the authorities against the applicant, alleging that he had made death threats against her. Most of the investigations opened in that connection have been discontinued. Three complaints lodged in 2010 were joined, and the investigation is still pending.

2. The applicant ’ s state of health

6. In 2004, following a shooting in Spain , the applicant sustained a severe injury to his spinal cord. As a result the lower part of his body was paralysed (paraplegia of the lower limbs). His paralysis was accompanied by dysfunctions of the bowel and bladder (urinary and faecal incontinence). Subsequently, he developed a skin condition, otherwise known as pressure sores ( decubitus ulcers).

7. In 2006 the applicant underwent spinal cord surgery and stem cell transplantation. In 2007 he underwent another operation. Between 2007 and the end of 2010 he was admitted to hospital on at least five occasions. He has received treatment in connection with, among other ailments , a hip fracture, a kidney infection and a urinary tract infection.

8. The doctors who examined the applicant after 2007 concluded that his condition was permanent and irreversible.

9. On 17 June 2008 the Territorial Expert Medical Commission found that the applicant had a 100% disability and needed constant assistance.

10. The applicant is in a wheelchair, uses a catheter and has problems with defecation. He is unable to take care of most of his everyday needs. His pressure sores have to be cleaned and disinfected on a regular basis.

11. On an unspecified date after 19 April 2012 the applicant underwent surgery to remove stones from his gallbladder.

3. The execution of the applicant ’ s sentences

12. It would appear that the applicant was detained the first time for the purpose of serving his terms of imprisonment in March 2009 (“first period” of imprisonment). Until that time his sentences had been suspended under Article 447 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2005 (“the CCP”) (see paragraph 54 below).

13. As early as November 2006 the applicant requested the Karlovo District Prosecutor ’ s Office to suspend his earliest prison sentence, that of 2006, because of his serious health problems. In December 2006 a prosecutor from the Karlovo District Prosecutor ’ s Office ordered a medical opinion to be prepared on the applicant ’ s state of health and suspended his sentence in accordance with Article 447 § 3 of the CCP.

14. On 19 April 2007 the applicant ’ s cumulative sentence of March 2007 was again temporarily suspended for a period of six months. The prosecutor who ordered the suspension relied on a medical opinion of April 2007, which concluded that since the applicant ’ s condition was very serious and was unlikely to improve he needed constant medical and paramedical care. Given those circumstances, his confinement in a prison was considered impossible.

15. Thereafter, on 19 October 2007 this sentence was again suspended, in accordance with Article 447 § 3 of the CCP, for a period of six months.

16. On 19 November 2007 another of the applicant ’ s sentences was suspended under Article 447 § 3 of the CCP for a period of five months.

17. After the new cumulative sentence of four years ’ imprisonment imposed in 2008 or 2009 became final, on 31 March 2009 the applicant was detained to serve this sentence (“first period”). It appears that this was his first period of detention since his injury in 2004.

18. The applicant was placed in the Sofia Prison Hospital where he underwent medical examinations. The doctors concluded that he should not be detained in prison and recommended the suspension of his sentence. It would appear that the term “prison establishment” used by the doctors included the Sofia Prison Hospital .

19. Relying on this conclusion, on 17 April 2009 a prosecutor from the Sofia City Prosecutor ’ s Office suspended the applicant ’ s sentence in accordance with Article 447 § 3 of the CCP for a period of three months.

20. The applicant was released the same day.

21. On 25 June 2009 the applicant ’ s sentence was again suspended pursuant to Article 447 § 3 of the CCP, this time for a period of one year.

22. Following the expiry of this latest suspension period, on 2 October 2010 the applicant was detained and again placed in the Sofia Prison Hospital where he remained until 2 December 2010 (“second period”), when another two-month suspension was ordered. During his stay in the prison hospital the applicant was examined by two specialists from civilian hospitals, who concluded that his condition was unlikely to improve.

23. In January 2011 the applicant went to the Sofia Prison Hospital for an examination in connection with his request for a further suspension of his sentence in accordance with Article 447 § 3 of the CCP.

24. On 18 January 2011 three specialists from the hospital concluded that the applicant needed constant medical care and support and that “his state of health [was] an obstacle to his detention in prison”. They recommended that his sentence be suspended again.

25. On 1 February 2011 a prosecutor from the Sofia City Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to grant a further suspension. He took note of the medical opinion of 18 January 2011, but concluded that in view of the applicant ’ s numerous convictions and his alleged continuing criminal activity his release from prison posed a threat to society.

26. The applicant appealed.

27. On 2 February 2011 the applicant was detained in the Sofia Prison Hospital in order to serve the rest of his four-year sentence (“third period”).

28. On 21 February 2011 the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor ’ s Office upheld the refusal to suspend the applicant ’ s sentence again. It took note of a medical report of 21 February 2011 prepared by specialists attached to the prison hospital which stated that the applicant could receive sufficient medical and paramedical assistance in the prison hospital and, in view of the fact that his condition was permanent and unlikely to improve, his placement in a civilian hospital was not considered necessary. In view of these findings, the prosecutor concluded that the medical care the applicant would receive in the event of a suspension of his sentence would be identical to that provided in the prison hospital.

29. Three further requests lodged by the applicant for suspension of his sentence were turned down on 28 June 2011, 1 February 2012 and 5 April 2012 in final decisions of the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor ’ s Office. In refusing the applicant ’ s requests, that office took into consideration the applicant ’ s conduct during the period when his sentence had been suspended (criminal proceedings into allegations of making death treats against his ex-wife were opened) and also noted that the suspension of sentences was provided only for cases where improvement was possible, which was not the applicant ’ s case. The public prosecutor noted that, in any event, the procedure laid down in section 135 of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-trial Detention Act (see paragraph 51 below) remained available to the applicant if it was shown that the treatment he required could not be carried out successfully in the prison hospital.

30. On 19 April 2012 the Sofia City Prosecutor ’ s Office ordered the suspension of the execution of the applicant ’ s sentence for a period of two months. In its view, this was necessary given that the medical evidence indicated that the applicant required urological surgery. On 8 June 2012 the suspension was extended for a further three months to allow for the applicant ’ s post ‑ surgery recovery.

4. Proceedings for granting the applicant a pardon

31. In 2010 the applicant lodged a request for a pardon with the office of the President. The request was rejected on 7 October 2010. The Vice ‑ President reasoned that the applicant ’ s medical condition could be addressed by means of a suspension of his sentence. Furthermore, given the applicant ’ s conduct when released previously, granting him a pardon was not socially acceptable.

32. On 22 March 2011 the medical commission of the Execution of Punishments Directorate examined the applicant ’ s case. Given the applicant ’ s condition, the commission decided to propose to the Vice ‑ President to pardon the applicant on medical grounds. It would appear that the medical commission ’ s concern essentially related to the difficulties which the Sofia Prison Hospital would face because of the prolonged placement of the applicant there.

33. The request was rejected on 28 July 2011. The Vice ‑ President once again noted the applicant ’ s criminal record. Furthermore, the medical commission had proposed a pardon, seemingly in view of the difficulties experienced by the prison hospital authorities in attending to the applicant ’ s needs. That, however, was not a valid ground for showing clemency.

34. Two further requests for a pardon lodged by the applicant were examined jointly and rejected on 23 May 2012. The reasoning centred on the likelihood of the applicant ’ s re-offending given his criminal record and conduct during the period of his release.

5. The conditions of the applicant ’ s detention

35. The applicant was detained in the Sofia Prison Hospital between 31 March and 17 April 2009 (“first period”), between 2 October and 2 December 2010 (“second period”), and between 2 February 2011 and 20 April 2012 (“third period”).

36. Between 3 and 21 February 2011 the applicant was on a hunger strike, protesting against his latest detention. During this period his condition was monitored by specialists three times a day.

37. The applicant was occupying a room in the neurological division of the prison hospital equipped with an en-suite toilet and shower. The door of the toilet was widened on an unspecified date, probably in November 2011. The room is equipped with an orthopaedic leather bed with movable parts. The bed and the applicant ’ s wheelchair have a supply of sanitary towels and underpads .

38. The applicant ’ s state of health was monitored daily by a doctor and a nurse, who provided him with the necessary medicines. The examinations were recorded in a medical diary. The applicant ’ s pressure sores were treated daily by a doctor or a nurse. Furthermore, during his previous stay in the hospital, in December 2010, the applicant was examined by two doctors from civilian hospitals (see paragraph 22 above).

39. The applicant received food in his room three times a day and was assisted by a medical orderly with dressing, eating and washing. Visits to the toilet were carried out with the assistance of an orderly, who manually helped with the applicant ’ s defecation and changed his catheter.

40. During the period between 2 February 2011 and 8 April 2011 the applicant shared a room with another inmate. After that date he was alone in the room.

41. On 9 June 2011 another prisoner was appointed as a personal assistant to the applicant. That person was accommodated in the applicant ’ s room and was responsible for dressing, washing and massaging the applicant as well as for changing underpads , assisting in carrying out doctor-prescribed physical exercises and taking the applicant outside. Prior to the appointment of the personal assistant these activities were carried out by a medical orderly.

42. The hospital was equipped with an elevator which provided access to different parts of the building. The hospital ’ s front entrance has had a ramp since at least 2006. It appears that at some point before June 2011 the prison authorities constructed an additional ramp at the hospital ’ s other entrance, which had only one step.

43. In the summer of 2011 the applicant started attending computer and art classes. However, the classrooms were not accessible by wheelchair and he had to be carried at least part of the way by other persons.

44. The door of the applicant ’ s room was locked in the evenings.

45. Since 2011, at the applicant ’ s request, he has been receiving visits from a priest.

B. Relevant international material and domestic law

1. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

46. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006 (Resolution A/RES/61/106) entered into force on 3 May 2008. It was signed by Bulgaria on 27 September 2007 and ratified on 22 March 2012.

47. Article 15 provides that:

“1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

2. States Parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

2. Reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”)

48. The CPT has visited Bulgaria several times. Sofia Prison was visited in 2006 and 2008.

During its 2006 visit to the medical centre at the Sofia prison and the Sofia Prison Hospital the CPT noted, inter alia , flaws in the health care policy in prisons generally (see paragraphs 106 ‑ 13 of CPT ’ s report on the 2006 visit to the Sofia prison (CPT/ Inf (2008) 11).

With respect to the Sofia Prison Hospital , the CPT observed:

“ii. Sofia Prison Hospital

114. The prison hospital at Sofia Prison had three wards: surgery, internal medicine and neuropsychiatry; in addition, there was a section for female prisoners and an area for infectious diseases. At the time of the visit, 40 prisoners were being treated at the hospital; the delegation was informed that, on average, 60 to 70 prisoners were hospitalised on any given day. The hospital also performed outpatient consultations of prisoners from Sofia Prison.

115. Living space in the patients ’ rooms was satisfactory (e.g. five prisoners in a room measuring some 30 m², including a sanitary annexe). The rooms had good access to natural light, artificial lighting and ventilation; however, they were in a rather poor state of repair and cleanliness.

As for the medical equipment, it was antiquated. The hospital urgently needed new equipment, in particular for X-rays, Doppler ultrasound scans and endoscopy, as well as surgical instruments.

The CPT recommends that steps be taken at Sofia Prison Hospital to:

– substantially upgrade the medical equipment;

– improve the state of repair and the level of hygiene in patients ’ rooms.

116. Although there were practically no unfilled posts, the delegation was informed that the hospital needed an additional 6 nurses, 4 GPs and an urologist; however, there was no budget for hiring more staff. The CPT would like to receive the comments on the Bulgarian authorities on this issue.”

49. The CPT further observed serious understaffing at all levels in the Sofia prison (see paragraph 117 of the 2006 report).

50. During its 2008 visit the CPT reiterated its recommendation to increase the number of staff in the Sofia Prison medical centre, which consisted of two doctors and two nurses (see paragraph 82 of the CPT report on its 2008 visit to the Sofia prison (CPT/ Inf (2010) 29).

3. Medical treatment in prison

51. The provisions regulating medical treatment in prison are contained in sections 128-151 of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-trial Detention Act of 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) and in regulations 115 ‑ 119 of the 2010 Regulations for its implementation. Under these provisions detainees may receive medical treatment in prison medical centres or in specialised prison hospitals. Where necessary, specialists from civilian hospitals may be consulted in relation to the medical treatment of detainees. Treatment and examination in civilian hospitals are possible in cases of infectious diseases, in cases where the necessary treatment cannot be carried out successfully in the prison hospital or when specialised tests and examinations are required (section 135 of the 2009 Act).

52. The 2009 Act established a medical commission under the Execution of Sentences Directorate which is competent to give opinions as to the feasibility of treatment in the prison medical establishments of convicted offenders who had not yet begun serving their sentences, and on requests for treatment in civilian hospitals or for suspension of sentences on medical grounds. It is also competent to make proposals for pardon on medical grounds (section 138 of the 2009 Act).

4. The possibility of early release or suspension of prison sentences

53. Under Bulgarian law there exist several sets of circumstances under which the whole of a prison sentence imposed by a final court judgment may not be served. Those which may be relevant in the applicant ’ s case include temporary suspension of the prison sentence and presidential pardon.

(a) Temporary suspension of a sentence

54. Temporary suspension can be ordered, inter alia , if the detainee is suffering from a serious illness, until he or she has recovered (Article 447 § 3 of the CCP). A prosecutor from the regional prosecutor ’ s office in whose district the individual is serving his sentence is the authority competent to order the suspension (Article 448 of the CCP). A prosecutor ’ s order to that effect may be appealed to a more senior prosecutor (Article 200 of the CCP).

(b) Presidential pardon

55. Under Article 98 point 11 of the Constitution, pardon is a presidential prerogative. Article 74 of the Criminal Code 1968 provides that the President may grant a pardon in respect of all or part of a sentence. It is a discretionary power which the Pres ident has delegated to the Vice ‑ President. The Vice-President may decide to exercise the power, in either form, at any time while the sentence is being served. His or her decision is unconditional and irrevocable. Refusal by the Vice-President to exercise his or her power is not subject to judicial or administrative review. Requests for pardon may be made by sentenced offenders, by the medical commission of the Execution of Sentences Directorate or by the “visitors ’ boards commissions”, which are established by local municipalities to observe conditions in prisons and to assist offenders reintegrate into society after they have served their sentences (sections 170 ‑ 171 of the 2009 Act).

COMPLAINTS

56. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the material conditions in the Sofia Prison Hospital and the insufficient and inadequate medical and paramedical assistance he received there.

57. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that Bulgarian law did not provide for remedies against the execution of a sentence in a humiliating and degrading manner and for compensation in that respect.

58. Finally, the applicant complained, under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, that because of his state of health he was subjected to a regime which was much stricter than that of other prisoners, and under Article 34 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to take the necessary steps to comply with the measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

THE LAW

A. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention

1. The parties ’ submissions

59. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. In particular, he had failed to bring a claim for damages under the State and Municipalities ’ Responsibility for Damage Act 1988. Moreover, the possibility to seek suspension of the execution of his sentence was available to him and he had in fact used that possibility with success on a number of occasions.

60. With regard to the merits, the Government maintained that the medical care provided to the applicant in the Sofia Prison Hospital had been adequate and sufficient. In particular, the hospital authorities had provided care adapted to the applicant ’ s condition and all his additional requests in this connection had been duly considered. The Government contested the applicant ’ s claims that the ramp installed on the outside stairs of the hospital was not accessible to him. Accessibility to the ramp had been tested in the applicant ’ s presence. When necessary, doctors from civilian hospitals had been asked to examine the applicant. In 2011 a personal assistant who could provide care to the applicant at all times had been appointed.

61. The applicant considered that the medical care provided to him in Sofia Prison Hospital had been inadequate in view of his condition. In particular, not all of the areas in the hospital, notably the shop and the courtyard, were accessible to wheelchair-bound inmates on account of the lack of ramps or the fact that the existing ramp was too steep for him to descend without the help of another person. Furthermore, he did not have an orthopaedic mattress, only a regular one which was filthy. The en-suite toilet, despite being equipped with a special toilet chair, was not accessible since the door was too narrow. The personal assistant appointed to assist him was not competent to help him with his toilet needs. This required the help of a specialist and it was only performed by hospital staff every seven or eight days. As for showering, there was no bath and he had to use a hose to shower. The applicant also stated that he was not provided with sufficient physiological care and was in need of balneological treatment, which he was unable to obtain in the prison hospital. As a result of the lack of adequate care as described by the applicant, his overall medical and mental condition had deteriorated.

2. The Court ’ s assessment

62. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among many other authorities, Stoyan Mitev v. Bulgaria , no. 60922/00 , § 63, 7 January 2010).

63. The Court further recalls that Article 3 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds or to transfer him to a civil hospital, even if he is suffering from an illness that is particularly difficult to treat (see Mouisel v. France , no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX, and Turzynski v. Poland ( dec .), no. 61254/09, 17 April 2012 ). However, this provision does require the State to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Turzynski , cited above, with further references). There are three particular elements to be considered in relation to the compatibility of an applicant ’ s health with his stay in detention: (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of the applicant (see Mouisel , cited above, §§ 40 ‑ 42, and Melnik v. Ukraine , no. 72286/01, § 94, 28 March 2006 ).

65. The Court will examine whether the applicant was provided with adequate medical care and assistance. It first observes that throughout the period of the applicant ’ s detention he was placed in Sofia Prison Hospital . He was never interned in a cell in Sofia Prison (contrast Turzynski , cited above, and D.G. v. Poland , no. 45705/07, § 144, 12 February 2013 (not final)) . During the period of his detention the applicant was assisted by a hospital orderly and after 9 June 2011 by a fellow inmate who was appointed as a personal assistant (see paragraph 41 above). Those persons were tasked with attending to his daily needs: showering, toilet needs and change of clothes. As regards the care provided to the applicant by the personal assistant, the Court finds it necessary to distinguish the present case from the situation which obtained in D.G. v. Poland (cited above), where the Court criticised the fact that the applicant in that case, also a wheelchair-bound prisoner, was, during long periods of time, left in the care of his fellow inmates. In the case at hand, the applicant ’ s assistant was appointed specifically for the purpose of providing round - the - clock care, under medical instructions, and was accommodated in the applicant ’ s room. Thus, unlike in D.G. v. Poland (cited above), the situation in the present case was not one where the applicant ’ s welfare was entrusted to his cellmates. Moreover, the care provided by the personal assistant was not in place of but rather in addition to the care provided by the medical personnel at the Sofia Prison Hospital .

66. The hospital premises were equipped with a lift, which permitted the applicant to access different parts of the building. In addition, a ramp was installed on the stairs outside the building, which enabled a person in a wheelchair to enter and leave the hospital building (see, as an example to the contrary, Arutyunyan v. Russia , no. 48977/09 , § 77, 10 January 2012) . The Court notes in this connection the Government ’ s statement that a test carried out confirmed that the ramp could be used by a person in a wheelchair.

67. The applicant ’ s hospital room was equipped with an en-suite toilet and shower, which were adapted for a wheelchair ‑ bound prisoner at some point in the autumn of 2011. Prior to that, the applicant was taken to the common showers to perform his daily hygiene routine. The Court notes that while it would undoubtedly have been desirable that a bath be made available to the applicant, the fact remains that he was nonetheless able to shower.

68. As to the adequacy of the medical care provided to the applicant the Court observes that while in the prison hospital a doctor, a nurse and a medical orderly were responsible for cleaning and treating his pressure sores, changing his underpads , administering medicines, prescribing physical exercises and all other care necessitated by the applicant ’ s condition. The applicant claims that the authorities failed to address adequately his gallbladder problems in that they rejected several of his requests for suspension of the execution of his sentence. However, the Court observes that even when the requests were rejected the public prosecutor ’ s office indicated on each occasion that the procedure under section 135 of the 2009 Act had been available to the applicant had he been in need of medical care. Thus, it cannot be upheld that the applicant was deprived of medical care in respect of his gallbladder condition.

69. Finally, the Court considers that the applicant has not substantiated, for example by means of medical reports, his assertions that the alleged deficiencies in the medical care and nursing assistance provided to him resulted in increased mental and physical suffering or led to a deterioration of his health.

70. To conclude, the Court finds that the authorities did not remain passive in the face of the applicant ’ s medical problems, and made efforts to cater for his disability and provide him with all necessary medical and para ‑ medical care. This finding makes it unnecessary to examine the Government ’ s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It follows that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

B. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention

71. The Government reiterated t heir submissions concerning non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.

72. The applicant disagreed.

73. The Court observes that Article 13 of the Convention requires domestic legal systems to make available an effective remedy empowering the competent national authority to address the substance of an “arguable” complaint under the Convention. The Court refers to its findings above that the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is manifestly ill ‑ founded. It is consequently not “arguable” for the purposes of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Ivanova - Sokolova v. Bulgaria ( dec .), no. 26057/04, 29 April 2008).

74. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

C. The applicant ’ s remaining complaints

75. The Court has examined the remaining complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

76. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill - founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Lawrence Early Ineta Ziemele Registrar President