FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 41348/98 by Ali KASTRATI against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 29 June 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress, President , Mr I. Cabral Barreto, Mr V. Butkevych, Mrs N. Vajić, Mr J. Hedigan, Mr M. Pellonpää, Mrs S. Botoucharova, judges , and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 March 1998 and registered on 25 May 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Yugoslav national, born in 1976. He is represented before the Court by Mr Anatol-Vesel Lukanov , a lawyer practising in Sofia.

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

On an unspecified date in December 1997 the applicant, together with other persons, crossed the Yugoslav-Bulgarian border illegally and entered Bulgaria.

On 29 December 1997 the applicant was arrested by the Bulgarian authorities. He submits that he surrendered voluntarily. The applicant was charged under Section 279 § 1 of the Penal Code for having crossed the border illegally and was detained on remand.

On 30 December 1997 the applicant’s lawyer appealed to the Sofia District Court against his client’s detention on remand. In accordance with the legal requirements and the established practice, he filed the appeal through the District Prosecutor’s Office.

Having noted that the District Prosecutor’s Office had not transmitted the appeal to the District Court, on 13 February 1998 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.

On 25 February 1998 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office instructed the District Prosecutor’s Office to transmit immediately the applicant’s appeal against his detention to the competent court.

On 27 February 1998 the District Court examined the appeal at an oral hearing, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer. The applicant’s lawyer argued, inter alia , that the charges against his client did not concern a grave crime, that he had surrendered voluntarily and had a permanent address in Yugoslavia, that he did not have a criminal record and that his only motive had been to see his Bulgarian girlfriend.

On the same day the District Court refused to release the applicant. It found that there was a clear danger of absconding in view of the fact that the applicant was a foreign national who had entered the country illegally and whose passport was not valid.

The applicant has not substantiated any further detail.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that his appeal against the lawfulness of his detention was not examined speedily. He also invokes Article 13 of the Convention.

The applicant also complains, invoking Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, that his detention on remand was unnecessary and not justified under domestic law and under the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains, invoking under Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention, that his appeal against detention was not examined speedily.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of the above complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant further complains, invoking Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 2 of the Convention, that his detention was not justified.

In the light of all the material in its possession, and noting the failure of the applicant to substantiate the relevant facts, the Court finds that the remainder of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention.

It follows that the remainder of the application must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant ’s complaint that his appeal against detention was not examined speedily;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress     Registrar    President