FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF CHOBANOV AND KOYRUSHKI v. BULGARIA

(Applications nos. 53942/16 and 47398/17)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

4 June 2020

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

In the case of Chobanov and Koyrushki 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 30 April 2020,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in two 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 applicant in application no. 53942/16 was represented by Mr V. Stoyanov, a lawyer practising in Pazardzhik.

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 LAW

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

7. The applicants complained principally of the allegedly inadequate conditions of their detention and of the alleged lack of an effective remedy in that respect. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 3

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

Article 13

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

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 violations 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 applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

11. The Court further notes that both applicants brought proceedings under section 1(1) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988, seeking damages in relation to the allegedly poor conditions of their detention. The domestic courts dismissed their claims and ordered them to bear the costs of the proceedings. The applicant in application no. 53942/16, Mr Chobanov, was ordered to pay about 3,567 Bulgarian levs (BGN, – 1,824 euros (EUR)), comprising the defendant authority’s legal representation costs (EUR 1,568) and the costs of the proceedings (EUR 256). The applicant in application no. 47398/17, Mr Koyrushki, was ordered to pay BGN 1,650 (EUR 844), comprising the defendant authority’s legal representation costs (EUR 639) and the costs of the proceedings (EUR 205).

12. The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires that the rules governing the costs of the proceedings do not place an excessive burden on the inmate, where his or her claim about the conditions of detention is justified (see Neshkov and Others, cited above , § 184). It refers to its finding above that the applicants were kept in poor conditions of detention (see paragraph 10 above). Accordingly, at the relevant time they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose breaches of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

14. The applicant in application no. 47398/17, Mr Koyrushki, also raised other complaints relating to the conditions of his detention under Article 3 of the Convention.

15. 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.

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

17. 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.”

18. Having regard to the documents in its possession and its settled case ‑ law (see, in particular, MurÅ¡ić , cited above, § 181) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and to reject the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction in application no. 47398/17. In particular, the Court notes that the applicant’s lawyer in application no. 47398/17 did not submit any documents showing that the applicant had actually paid the costs of the domestic proceedings or that any enforcement proceedings had been instituted against him. In the absence of such documents, the Court sees no basis on which to award pecuniary damage.

19. 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,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that in application no. 47398/17 the respondent State is to pay directly to the applicant’s representative the amount 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;

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)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Date of birth

Representative’s name and location

Facility

Start and end date Duration

Specific grievances

Domestic award

(in euros)

Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [2]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [3]

53942/16

08/09/2016

Svetoslav Atanasov CHOBANOV

17/05/1972

Varna Detention Facility

19/08/2011 to

01/03/2012

6 months and 12 days

Varna Prison

01/03/2012 to

18/11/2012

8 months and 18 days

Overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, the applicant had to eat in the cell, no or restricted access to shower, insufficient heating during the colder months of the year, inadequate ventilation in the cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, the applicant had to resort to using a plastic bottle to relieve his needs in the evening.

Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate ventilation in the cells, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet.

EUR 0

EUR 1,824

EUR 5,900

-

47398/17

24/06/2017

Georgi

Petrov KOYRUSHKI

23/12/1986

Valeri

Stoyanov

STOYANOV

Pazardzhik

Pazardzhik Prison

17/08/2012 to

16/05/2014

1 year and 9 months

Overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell. The applicant was housed in cell no. 802 (12-16 inmates, 38, 2 sq. m., including sanitary facilities); cell no. 808 (up to 18 inmates, 45, 2 sq. m, including sanitary facilities); cell no. 93 (8 inmates, 22, 1 sq. m, including sanitary facilities).

EUR 0

-

EUR 7,400

EUR 250

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.