FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

(Applications nos. 2727/19 and 6 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

4 June 2020

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

In the case of Ivanov and Others 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 14 May 2020,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in 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 applicants were represented by the lawyers named in the appended table.

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 applicant in application no. 7036/19 also raised other complaints under Article 3.

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 of the allegedly inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 3

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

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 a violation 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 conditions of the applicants’ detention were inadequate.

11. The applicants’ complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 of the Convention.

12. The applicants also complained of the alleged lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 13

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

13. In its admissibility decision in the case of Atanasov and Apostolov v. Bulgaria ((dec.), nos. 65540/16 and 22368/17, § 28, 27 June 2017), the Court found that the new preventive and compensatory remedies under the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”), put in place in early 2017 in response to the Court’s pilot judgment in Neshkov and Others (cited above) constitute effective domestic remedies in respect of complaints under Article 3 of the Convention relating to inhuman or degrading conditions of detention of persons serving a sentence of imprisonment or placed in pre-trial detention.

14. All of the applicants in the present case brought claims for damages in relation to the poor conditions of their detention; these either were still pending at the time of the introduction of the new compensatory remedy under the new section 284 of the 2009 Act on 7 February 2017, or were lodged after that. By paragraph 49 of the transitional and concluding provisions of the Act amending the 2009 Act, pending claims for damages in relation to poor conditions of detention – which were previously examined under section 1(1) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) – were to be dealt with in the manner laid down by section 284(1) of the amended 2009 Act (see Atanasov and Apostolov , cited above , § 28).

15. As a result, the claims brought by the applicants in the present case were examined, at least on appeal, before the Supreme Administrative Court, in line with the requirements of the new compensatory remedy (see Atanasov and Apostolov , cited above , §§ 58-65). All of the applicants, with the exception of the applicant in application no. 17773/19, Mr Popov, were awarded damages. It follows that all of them had at their disposal an effective remedy with respect to the conditions of their detention.

16. The mere fact that the claim of one of the applicants, Mr Popov, was dismissed on the facts does not detract from that conclusion. The right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention is not to be interpreted as a right to a favourable outcome for the person using it (see, among other authorities, Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v. Sweden , 6 February 1976, § 50, Series A no. 20). The conclusion is not nullified by the low sums awarded to the other applicants either. The mere fact that the compensation awarded to an applicant following the use of an otherwise effective compensatory remedy is too low does not in itself call into question the effectiveness of that remedy (see, mutatis mutandis , Delle Cave and Corrado v. Italy , no. 14626/03, §§ 43 and 45, 5 June 2007, and Simaldone v. Italy , no. 22644/03, § 71, 31 March 2009).

17. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

18. The applicant in application no. 7036/19, Mr Todorov, also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

19. 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.

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

21. 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.”

22. 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 applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in applications nos. 7036/19, 9835/19, 12559/19, 17168/19, 17773/19 and 21744/19.

23. 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 for non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that the respondent State is to pay directly to the applicants’ representatives the amounts 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 non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

2727/19

28/12/2018

Milen Ivanov IVANOV

06/11/1965

Anatoli Lyubomirov ANGELOV

Levski

Gabrovo Detention Facility

22/03/2011 to

26/03/2012

1 year and 5 days

Lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, passive smoking, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, constant electric light, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower. The applicant had to resort to a bottle to relieve himself.

695 euros (EUR) (1,200 Bulgarian levs (BGN),

plus BGN 160

in interest calculated until 28/06/2018,

when the Supreme Administrative Court gave its final judgment).

4,500

250

7036/19

07/01/2019

Todor Marinov TODOROV

08/05/1959

Yordan Kostadinov KOSTOV

Sofia

Reception centre at Belene Prison

18/05/2016 to

01/06/2016

15 days

Belene Prison

01/06/2016 to

11/08/2016

2 months and 11 days

Infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food.

Mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents.

EUR 268

(BGN 440, plus BGN 85 in interest calculated until 03/08/2018 when the Supreme Administrative Court gave its final judgment).

1,500

-

9835/19

11/02/2019

Nikola Peychev IVANOV

03/06/1982

Valeri Stoyanov STOYANOV

Pazardzhik

Burgas Prison

17/11/2011 to

17/11/2016

5 years and 1 day

The cell was narrow and not equipped with a sanitary facility. The applicant had to use a bucket to relieve himself in the cell, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to running water.

EUR 1,668 (BGN 2,740, plus BGN 522 in interest until 10/10/2018 when the Supreme Administrative Court gave its final judgment).

10,800

250

12559/19

22/02/2019

Pavel Petrov KARAKOLEV

23/04/1979

Valeri Stoyanov STOYANOV

Pazardzhik

Pazardzhik Detention Facility

14/12/2011 to

21/04/2012

4 months and 8 days

Pazardzhik Prison

21/04/2012 to

11/06/2014

2 years and 1 months and 22 days

Lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water.

Mouldy or dirty cell, overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, during his detention in Pazardzhik Prison the applicant contracted hepatitis A.

EUR 775 (BGN 1,200, plus BGN 316 in interest until 13/11/2018 when the Supreme Administrative Court gave its final judgment).

8,900

250

17168/19

15/03/2019

Yordan Georgiev YORDANOV

09/02/1971

Valeri Stoyanov STOYANOV

Pazardzhik

Pazardzhik Prison

10/11/2015 to

03/12/2016

1 year and 24 days

Overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, passive smoking.

EUR 308

(BGN 500, plus BGN 102 in interest calculated until 30/11/2018 when the Supreme Administrative Court gave its final judgment).

5,100

250

17773/19

26/03/2019

Ivan Blagoev POPOV

09/08/1978

Valeri Stoyanov STOYANOV

Pazardzhik

Pazardzhik Prison

13/10/2016 to

30/12/2016

2 months and 18 days

Plovdiv Prison

06/01/2017 to

30/08/2018

1 year and 7 months and 25 days

Infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower.

Mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to running water.

EUR 0

Final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 15/01/2019 dismissing the applicant’s claim.

7,900

250

21744/19

17/04/2019

Valentin Petrov BIVOLARSKI

21/04/1979

Valeri Stoyanov STOYANOV

Pazardzhik

Pazardzhik Prison

29/11/2012 to

12/07/2013

7 months and 14 days

Pazardzhik Prison

09/12/2013 to

03/05/2016

2 years and 4 months and 25 days

Overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents.

Overcrowding, bunk beds, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents.

EUR 588 (BGN 1,000, plus BGN 150 in interest calculated until 14/01/2019 when the Supreme Administrative Court gave its final ruling).

10,500

250[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

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