FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF SIMEONOVI v. BULGARIA

( Application n o. 21980/04 )

JUDGMEN T

STRASBOURG

20 October 2015

THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 12/05/2017

This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Simeonovi v . Bulgaria ,

The European Court of Human Righ ts ( Fourth S ection), si tting as a chamber composed of :

Guido Raimondi, President , Päivi Hirvelä , George Nicolaou , Ledi Bianku , Paul Mahoney, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Yonko Grozev , judges , and Françoise Elens-Passos, S ection Registrar ,

Having deliberate d in private on 29 September 2015,

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

PROC EE D INGS

1 . The case originated in an application (n o. 21980/04) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court on 8 June 2004 under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( “the Convention ” ) by three Bulgarian nationals , M r Lyuben Filipov Simeonov , M s Nelly Nikola Simeonova and M r Filip Lyubenov Simeonov .

2 . The applic ants were represented by M s S. Margaritova-Vuchkova . Th e Bulgarian Government (“ the Government ” ) were represented by their agent, M s R. Nikola , from the Ministry of Justice.

3 . By a decision of 23 August 2011 the application was declared part ly i nadmissi ble, the Court having dismissed all the complaints submitted by the second and third applic ant s and some of the complaints submitted by the first applic ant , M r . Lyuben Filipov Simeonov ( “ the applicant” ). The applic ant ’ s complaints under A rticle 3 concerning the lack of medical care in prison , his conditions of detention and his excessive ly strict pri son r e gime, a s well as the complaint under A rticle 6 § 1 in co njunction with A rticle 6 § 3 c) concerning the lack of assistance by counsel for the first few days of his detention , were communi cated to the Government . Furthermore , as permitted by A rticle 29 § 1 of the Convention, i t was decided that the Chamber would simultaneously adjudicate on the admissibility and the merits of the case .

THE FA C T S

I. THE CIRC UM STANCES OF THE CASE

4 . The applic ant was born in 1975. He is currentl y serving a life sentence in Sofia P rison .

A. Criminal proceedings against the applic ant

5 . On 2 July 1999 two armed individuals burst into a bureau de change in Burgas . Shots were fired and two staff members were killed . The criminals fled with a sum of money .

6 . On the sam e day the Burgas investigatory department instigated criminal proceedings against X f or armed robbery and homicide.

7 . On 3 October 1999 the applic ant, M r Lyuben Simeonov , was arrested in Sofia by a team from the special unit of the Interior Ministry . He was transferred to Burgas .

8 . At 8 p.m. o n 4 October 1999, an investigator from the Burgas investigatory department placed the applic ant in detention f or twenty-four hours . He was suspected of having committed the armed robbery and the two murders of 2 July 1999 , aided and abetted by a certain A.S. On the following day a prosecutor from the Burgas regional prosecutor ’ s office extended his detention by three days .

9 . The applic ant submitted that despite his express requests he had not been assisted by a lawyer for the first three days of his detention . During that time the officials responsible for the investigation had questioned him about the robbery and the two murders committed in Burgas on 2 July 1999.

10 . On 6 October 1999 the investigator appointed an official lawyer to defen d the applic ant. At 12 noon on the sa me day, in the presence of his official ly appointed lawyer , the applicant was formally charged with committing armed robbery in the Burgas bureau de change and of the murder of two persons , and placed in detention . He refused to answer the investigator ’ s questions.

11 . On 12 October 1999 the applic ant was questioned in the presence of two lawyers of his choice . He remained silent .

12 . On 21 October 1999, assisted by his two lawyers , he confessed . His presumed accomplice , A.S., a lso confessed to the crim inal offences charged.

13 . The officers responsible for the investigation subsequently gathered a substantial body of evidence, including witness accounts and medical, scientific, material and documentary evidence.

14 . On 4 January 2000 the applic ant and A.S., assisted by their defence lawyers , took cognisance of the documents in the investigation file . They retracted their confessions, and their lawyers requested a f resh interrogation of their clients.

15 . On 16 February 2000 th e Burgas regional prosecutor re ferred the file to the investigator for further inquiries . He asked him in particular to conduct a number of investigative measures and once again to formally charge both suspects.

16 . On 7 March 2000 the applic ant was charged with an additional offence, namely the unlawful purchase of the firearm which had been used during the robbery of 2 July 1999. On the sa me day the two suspects were question ed in the presence of their lawyers . In his deposit ions the applic ant related a version of events to the effect that the robbery and murders in question had been committed by a certain V., an Iranian national , aided and abetted by an unknown second person .

17 . On 17 May 2000 the regional prosecutor ’ s office drew up the indictment and committed the applicant and his presumed accomplice for trial before the Burgas regional court.

18 . The regional court considered the criminal case between 25 July 2000 and 14 June 2001. During the proceedings the applic ant, who was assisted by a l a wyer , s ubmitted that he and his presumed accomplice had indeed been in Burgas on 1 July 1999 and that they had indeed inten ded to commit a robbery in the bureau de change, but that they had changed their minds and returned to Sofia the sa me day .

19 . On 14 June 2001 the Burgas regional court delivered its judgment . Th e applic ant was found guilty of armed robbery in the Burgas bureau de change, which crime had been accompanied by the murder of two persons and committed with the complicity of A.S. He was also found guilty of the unlawful purchase of a pistol and am munition . The regional court imposed the heaviest sentence available under the Bulgarian Criminal Code , namely a whole- life sentence. In accordance with section 127b [ 1 ] of the Law on the Execution of Punish ment s , the regional court ord ered the applicant ’ s placement under the so-called “ special ” prison regime .

20 . Drawing on the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation and at the hearing, the regional court established the facts as follows : t he applicant ’ s former partner, D.K., had started work as a cashier in the bureau de change in question in 1997 when she was still living with the applicant. While working there she had met the first victim , a certain N.B., who was a close relative of the owner and an employee in the same establishment . In June 1999 D.K. had left the applic ant and moved in with N.B. in Burgas . Th e applic ant had then decided to kill N.B. and to steal the cash kept in the bureau de change. He had purchased a “ Makarov ” pistol , a silenc er and ammunition . The applicant had persuaded a friend , A.S., to take part in the robbery . On the afternoon of 1 July 1999 the applic ant and A.S. had arrived in Burgas by bus . They had then gone to the building in which the bureau de change was located , and had gone up to the top floor to spend the night. Next morning, just before 9 a.m. , they had descended to the floor on wh ich the bureau de change was located and noted that N.B. was in the premises alone . A.S., who had been carrying the pistol, had burst into the premises and fired one point-blank shot at the victim ’ s left temple . The young man had died instantly . The two ac complices had then placed the money which they had found in the bureau de change in a bag which they had brought with them . Meanwhile the armed security guard of the bureau de change , a certain P.I., had rushed into the premises where the first victim had been kill e d . A.S. had fired two shots at him, hitting him in the face. The security guard had been killed instantly . A.S. and the applic ant had left the building . They had then concealed the murder weapon under a rubbish bin , thrown away the clothes they had been wearing and hidden the stolen money. Some time later the two men had ordered a certain E.E. to fetch the money for them, which he had done .

21 . Th e applic ant appealed against that judgment . He complained that insufficient reasons had been given for the con vic tion , that his guilt had not been establish ed, that the first- instance court had reached an erroneous decision , that there had been several breaches of the procedural and substantive rul es under domestic law and that the regional court had shown bias .

22 . T he applic ant ’ s lawyer requested the withdrawal of all the judges of the Burgas Court of A ppe a l. He argu ed that the media coverage of the criminal case had created a climate of intolerance and hostility towards his client. The defence called for an additional witness to be summoned, the re - examination of one of the witnesses already questioned by the court of first instance, a nd several additional expert opinion s. On 4 December 2001 the judge-rapporteur responsible for the criminal case rejected the requests for further evidence-gathering as irrelevant . He dismissed the challenge to the judges of the Court of A ppe a l for lack of evidence of bias .

23 . The Court of A ppe a l considered the criminal case between February and July 2002. It questioned a new witness and received additional conclusions from psychiatr ic experts on the mental stat e of the two accused .

24 . On 6 August 2002 the Burgas Court of A ppe a l upheld the judgment of the court of first instance , giving its full backing to the latter ’ s factual and legal findings . The evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation, presented before the court of first instance and produced for the first time before the Appeal Court had demonstrated that the two accused had planned and carried out the robbery in the bureau de change and that the two victims had been killed by A.S. Yet th e applic ant had been the instigator of those murders and had pro vided the weapon used by his accomplice . The Court of A ppe a l drew on the deposit ions of the many witnesses questioned during the assessment of the case, on the results of the ballistic , techni cal and accountants ’ reports and the medical and psychiatri c opinions, and also on the material and documentary evidence gathered .

25 . The Court of A ppe al observed that the accused ’ s initial deposit ions during the preliminary investigation had differed considerably from their submissions to the court of first instance. The initial depositions had corrobora ted the finding concerning their participation in commi tting the crim inal offenc es in issu e, whereas the subsequent ones set out a version of events to the effect that an Iranian national had committed those offences . The C ourt of A ppe a l gave c redence to the accused ’ s initial depositions , which had been made to an investigator in their lawyers ’ presence after they had been formally charged . The two individuals thus charged had been advised that their statements could be used in court with a view to establish ing the facts , and the ir prior medical examination had revealed no sign of physi cal violence , which contradicted the defence lawyer ’ s a lleg ation that the applicant ’ s initial confession had been ext racted from him .

26 . The Court of Appeal turned its attention to the applicant ’ s version of events stating that the two murders and the robbery had been committed by a certain V., an Iranian national , and that the applicant himself had been at his place of work in Sofia at the material time . Verifications carried out in the Interior Ministry database had shown that no Iranian national of that name was present in Bulgaria . I t was true that the applic ant had been at his place of work in Sofia on 2 July 1999. However, he had been working as a night watchman and the robbery and murders had been committed early in the morning, which had given him enough time to cover the distance between Burgas and Sofia and to arrive at work the same evening. The Court of A ppe a l deem ed unconvincing the statement by the only witness who had corroborated the applicant ’ s version of events .

27 . The Court of A ppe a l noted that the judgment of the court of first instance displaye d none of the procedural defects mentioned by the defence . The factual and legal findings of the regional court had not been exclusive ly based on the accused ’ s confessions but on the whole body of consistent evidence gathered during the criminal proceedings . The applic ant had participated active ly in the proceedings and his lawyers had submitted several requests linked to the progress of the trial and the gathering of evidence . Th e regional court had re spond ed to all those requests and had provided full reasons for its procedural decisions . There had been no sign of bias on the part of the judges who had examined the case, and the proceedings had been conducted in such a way as to safeguard the parties ’ interests .

28 . The Court of A ppe a l exclu ded a statement by one witness from the evidence for non- compliance with the procedural rules , but did not consider that statement decisive in terms of the factual and legal conclusions in the case . The problem was that the regional court had been dilatory in issuing its grounds of judgment . However , the defence had been able to submit additional observations on appe a l after having secured a copy of the grounds of judgment .

29 . Th e applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, reiterating his submissions to the Court of A ppe a l.

30 . By a judgment of 17 December 2003 the Supreme Court of C assation dismissed the applic ant ’ s appeal on points of law . That court found that none of the circumstances mentioned by the defence demonstrated the existence of bias on the part of the judges who had considered the criminal case. The applic ant had had an opportunity to defend himself effective ly during the criminal proceedings : he had given evidence and challenged the evidence against him . Some of his requests for further evidence-gathering had been accepted by the lower-level courts, and proper reasons had been given for their re jection of other evidential requests as mentioned by the defence .

31 . Furthermore, in adopting the appeal court ’ s other arguments, the Supreme Court of C assation considered that the facts had been well established , that the substantive and procedural legislation had been appropriately appli ed and that the accused ’ s rights had been fully respected .

B. The applicant ’ s conditions of detention

32 . The applic ant was held in Burgas Provisional Detention Facility from 5 October 1999 to 27 January 2000 , and again from the beginning of March to 14 April 2000. He was incarcerated in Burgas Prison from 27 January 2000 to the beginning of March 2000 , and again from 14 April 2000 to 25 February 2004. On the latter date he was transferred to Sofia P rison, where he is still being held .

1. Burgas Provisional Detention Facility

33 . The applic ant submitted that he had been held in a cell without window, toilets or running water . The premises had had poor ventil ation and lighting . He had not been allowed to exercise in the open air. Access to sanita tion had been restricted and the time allowed for washing had been insufficient . Th e applic ant emphasised that the conditions of hygiene in the detention facility had been deplorable . He had subsequently been moved to another cell with two other detainees . The three detainees had had to take turns sleeping because the cell only had one bench .

34 . According to a rapport by the Director General of Prisons submitted by the Government , at the time the only furniture in the cell s in Burgas Provisional Detention Facility had been a bench . The cell s had had no windows and the only daylight had entered through holes in metal plates affixed to the doors . The facility in question had only had one shared toilet and bathroom and lacked any open-air facilities for detainees . The rapport also mentioned that between 2002 and 2009 the facility had been completely renovated and redeveloped to bring the conditions of detention in to line with the detainees ’ human dignity .

2. Burgas Prison

35 . Th e applic ant alleged that his cell in Burgas Prison had had a surface area of 6 m 2 . I t had contained a bed and a metal rack . There had been neither running water nor toilets in his cell. He had used a plastic bucket for his bodily functions . Like all the prisoners he was allowed out of his cell for thirty minutes three times a day, in order to empty the bucket and fill his water bottle . The applicant submitted, in support of those allegations , a statement by his co - accused A.S., who had been detained with him under the same conditions in Burgas Prison . The applicant added that he had been forced to wear a convict ’ s uniform even though he should have been allowed to wear his own clothes, under the prison rules .

36 . Th e applic ant exp lained that at the beginning of his term in Burgas P rison he had been deprived of open-air exercise . According to A.S. ’ s statement ( see paragraph 35 above ), prisoners were allowed one-hour ’ s open-air exercise every other day . Th e applic ant was not involved in any organised activity in Burgas Prison . He had submitted several requests to the prison authorities to allow him to join in the various vocational training and occupational programmes and had applied for a transfer to Sofia Prison in order to be closer to his family, but no action had ever been taken on his requests.

37 . According to a report by the Director of Burgas Prison submitted by the Government , the applic ant had problems adapting to the prison regulations ; his attitude to the wardens and the prison authorities had been refractory and disrespectful . However, the applic ant had enjoyed all the rights afforded to persons deprived of their liberty . He had board and lodging in accordance with normal prison standards. He had open-air exercise every day and free access to the prison library . He had consulted a psycholog ist on several occasions and had had a number of meetings with the official responsible for activities in the prison.

3. Sofia Prison

38 . Following his transfer to Sofia Prison the applic ant had been subject to a “special” prison regime involving virtually total isol ation from the rest of the prison population.

39 . The applicant submitted that over the period from February 2004 to summer 2006 he had been confined to a cell measuring 4 x 2 metres which he had shared with another prisoner . The two beds had taken up most of the floor area, leaving the two prisoners with a free area of only 2 m 2 . There had been no running water in the cell and the prisoners had used a bucket as a toilet .

40 . The applic ant stat ed that he had spent most of the day sitting on his bed for lack of free space in the cell. He had eaten his meals in the cell and had been allowed to walk in the prison yard for one hour every day . His access to the prison library had been limited to the few minutes it took to choose and borrow a book, after which he had been immediately taken back to his cell. He had been allowed to attend the prison chapel twice a year, at Easter and Christmas , although not during worship so that he would not meet other prisoners .

41 . The applicant added that up until 2005, the h igh- security wing of the prison had been overcrowded and ill prisoners had not been held separately from other prisoners , which had fostered the transmission of infectious diseases . Material conditions had improved somewhat after the works in the high-security wing in 2005 and 2006. In December 2008, his prison regime had been relaxed . However , like all prisoners in his category , he had still been kept separate from the rest of the prison population and his cell had been kept lock ed during the day. In 2004 and 2005 he had occasionally worked in his cell folding envelopes . Since 2010 he has been allowed into an activit ies room where he can talk to other life prisoners and read books.

42 . According to a report by the Director of Sofia Prison dated 11 October 2011, the high- security wing of Sofia Prison had been completely renovated in 2005 and 2006. On the date of the report in question the applic ant had been held in an individual cell measuring 7. 7 m 2 and containing a bed, a table, a rack, a shower and private toilets . His cell had been heated and had running water and proper lighting .

43 . Apart from the restrictions imposed by his prison regime , the applic ant benefited from all the activities provided to other prisoners : he could work, visit the library and the prison chapel , receive visits from his relatives , write and receive letters . He was also eligible for relaxation of his prison regime under section 198 of the Prisons Act, subject to a favourable opinion from the relevant special commission, and could ultimately be accommodated with the rest of the prison population.

44 . Furthermore, in 2010 the applic ant applied for the annul ment of a number of the provisions of the implementing regulations of the Prisons Act concerning the m anner and meth od of execution of his life sentence . His application was finally dismissed by a judgment of 14 September 2011 delivered by the Supreme A dministrative Court , which found that the challenged provisions of the implementing regulations were not contrary to the Prisons Act and that the adoption of the regulations had not involv ed any irregularities justifying their annul ment .

C. The applic ant ’ s state of health and the medical care pro vided in prison

45 . In June 2001, while in Burgas Prison , the applic ant began a hunger strike in protest against the authorities ’ refusal to transfer him to Sofia Prison . He was monitored by the prison medical team while on hunger strike . In July 2001 his s tate of health worsened and he was transferred , on the initiative of the prison authorities , to the Sofia Prison hospital . On recovery he returned to Burgas Prison .

46 . On 26 October 2004 the applic ant was taken to the Sofia Prison hospital . Medical examinations revealed that he was suffering from tuberculosis . He received medicinal treatment at the hospital until 15 November 2004. He subsequently asked the prison authorities to allow him to take more exercise in the open air, which request was re ject ed . The applicant submitted that he had been unable to obtain a diet suited to his state of health either during or after his treatment in the prison hospital .

47 . According to the 11 October 2011 report by the Director of Sofia P rison , after his stay in the prison hospital in 2004 the applic ant had been given regular medical examinations and biologi cal control analyses . The results of his latest examinations in 2011 had shown that his illness had not returned.

48 . In August 2010 and January 2011 the applicant was taken into hospital for headaches and insomnia . He was examined and biologi cal analyses were carried out . The doctors concluded that he was suffering from chronic headach es. No serious complications were detected . Th e applic ant re ceived medicinal treatment and the headaches ceased on release from hospital .

49 . According to the sam e report , the applicant had several appointments with the prison dentist and another dentist chosen by his re la t ive s.

50 . Furthermore , according to the above- mentioned reports by the Directors of Sofia and Burgas Prisons , the prisons run a prevention and screening programme for tuberculosis compr ising prophylactic examinations , medical analyses in cas es of suspected infection and hospitalisation of prisoners positively diagnosed with the disease . Specifi c groups of prisoners such as drug addicts , HIV- positive persons , persons having previously suffered from tuberculosis and diabetics are the subject of special monitoring by the prison doctors .

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRA C TI C E

A. The method and manner of executing life sentences and compensation proceedings under the Law on State and M unicipal R esponsibility for D amage

51 . The relevant domestic law and case-law concerning the regulations on the execution of life sentences and actions for damages in respect of damage caused by poor conditions of detention were summarised in Harakchiev and Tolumov v . Bulgaria , n os. 15018/11 and 61199/12 , §§ 108-135 and §§ 136-146 respective ly , E CH R 2014 ( extracts ).

B. A ccess to a lawyer during the early days of detention

52 . Under section 70 [ 4 ] of the former Law on the Interior Ministry , which was repealed in 2006, anyone who wa s detained by the police on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence was entitled to legal assist anc e as from the beginning of his prison term .

53 . Under Article 73 § 1 of the former C ode of Criminal Procedure , defence counsel could particip ate in the criminal proceedings as soon as the suspect was arrested or charged .

III. R E PORTS OF THE EUROPEAN CO M MI T T EE FO R THE PR E VENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMA N O R D E GRAD ING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (CPT)

54 . Burgas Provisional Detention Facility was visited in 1999 by a CPT delegation . The relevant part of the report publi shed after that visit reads as follows :

“ 73. As they were generally the same as those observed in investigation detention facilities during the CPT ’ s 1995 visit, the report will not describe in detail the conditions observed in Burgas Regional detention facility (15 cells, forty detainees at the time of the delegation ’ s visit), Nessebur Investigation detention facility (5 cells, six detainees at the time of the visit) and Plovdiv Regional Investigation detention facility (32 cells, forty-eight detainees at the time of the visit). To mention only some of the most important failings, these establishments were overcrowded, poorly equipped and dirty, detainees ’ access to toilet/shower facilities was problematic, there was insufficient food and drinking water and a total absence of outdoor exercise and out-of-cell activities. As such, the conditions remain of very serious concern to the CPT. ”

55 . Burgas Prison was visited by a CPT delegation in April 2002. The relevant part of the r e port published by the delegation reads as follows :

“ 93. At the time of the visit, Burgas Prison held eleven life-sentenced prisoners (including three whose sentences had not been confirmed). Similar to other parts of the establishment, the section for life-sentenced prisoners had benefited from recent refurbishment. Due to the removal of shutters from cell windows, ventilation and access to natural light had clearly improved. New cell equipment had been delivered and each cell (measuring 6 m²) was about to be fitted w ith a bed, table, chair, notice ‑ board and cupboard. ...

95 . ... Life-sentenced prisoners ’ access to the toilet facilities was restricted to three times a day. At other times, they had to use a bucket within their cells. The recommendations already made in paragraphs 82 and 87 concerning access to toilet facilities apply equally to life-sentenced prisoners.

96 . ... Life-sentenced inmates referred to recent improvements to their regime, involving, at Burgas , access to the library and recreational activities (e.g. TV, video projections ) ... . Further ... the inmates concerned had been given some productive/creative work which they could carry out in their cells. Finally, they were now allowed to use the phone. These are all steps in the right direction.

However, life-sentenced prisoners complained about the lack of possibilities for associating among themselves and with other prisoners. The little time available for face-to-face interaction during daily outdoor exercise ... and recreational/sports activities did not offer adequat e scope for human contact. ...

More generally, the CPT recommends that the Bulgarian authorities continue to develop the regime of life-sentenced prisoners at Burgas and Pleven prisons, as well as at other prisons throughout Bulgaria, by integrating them in the mainstream prison population, in accordance with the above-mentioned amendments to the Law on the Execution of Punishments. ...

107. Both Burgas and Pleven prisons held a certain number of inmates suffering from tuberculosis. Tangible efforts were being made by the respective health care services to address the issue on the basis of the updated ‘ Working programme for combating tuberculosis in the prison system ’ , established by the Ministry of Justice in co-operation with the Ministry of Health.

At both establishments, it was standard practice for prisoners with active TB to be transferred to Lovech Prison Hospital for intensive treatment; following this, sustaining treatment was administered by the respective health care services. The CPT ’ s delegation was told at the two prisons that there was a sufficient supply of anti ‑ tuberculosis medication. However, it would appear that the taking of anti ‑ tuberculosis medication at both establishments was not monitored on an ongoing basis, as prescribed by the DOTS strategy for tuberculosis control. The CPT would like to receive the comments of the Bulgarian authorities on this matter.

More generally, the information received by the CPT ’ s delegation during the 2002 visit indicated that the prevalence of tuberculosis in the Bulgarian prison population had fallen noticeably since 1999. This is a positive development. The CPT encourages the Bulgarian authorities to ensure that vigilance is maintained in respect of tuberculosis control in all penal establishments, especially through adequate screening of the inmate population and the provision of appropriate material resources and training of health care staff. Tuberculosis control should be effected in a consistent manner across the prison system, and in accordance with standards applied in the outside community. ”

56 . Sofia Prison was visited by a CPT delegation in September 2006, December 2008 and March and April 2014. The three visit reports were published .

57 . The relevant part of the report on the 2006 visit reads as follows :

“ 101. There were 15 lifers at Sofia Prison at the time of the visit; two were being accommodated in the mainstream prison population, while the rest were held in a separate unit in the section used for disciplinary isolation. Lifers in the separate unit were accommodated in single cells measuring 7.5 m²; the cells had a small barred window, set too high in the wall to afford a view out. There was integral sanitation which reduced the limited space in the cell; however, the cells would provide adequate sleeping accommodation for one person provided these prisoners were offered a varied programme of out-of-cell activities during the daytime.

However, in contrast to the situation observed in Pleven and Sliven, life-sentenced prisoners in Sofia Prison lacked communal activities. They were locked up in their cells except for periods of outdoor exercise (1.5 hours like the rest of the inmates at Sofia Prison), which all but four lifers took together. ... In-cell activities included watching TV and reading books from the library and a daily newspaper; further, nine lifers worked in their cells (making gift bags). ...

... As regards those life-sentenced prisoners currently held in special units, the CPT recommends that the Bulgarian authorities continue to develop their regime of activities, in particular by providing more communal activities (including access to work and education) and revising the policy on long-distance learn ing and computer ‑ based courses. ...

109. Medical examination on admission generally took place on the day of arrival or the following day, but there were a few isolated cases of delays of several days, undoubtedly a reflection of the meagre staff resources. Further, during the month spent in the reception unit, newly arrived prisoners underwent a number of examinations (including of suicidal risk).

As regards screening for transmissible diseases, it varied from one prison to another. ... At Sofia Prison, screening for HIV was carried out by an NGO on a voluntary basis. As regards screening for tuberculosis, a mobile X-ray unit visited the prisons once a year and all prisoners were screened. ... ”

58 . The relevant part of the report on the 2008 visit reads as follows :

“ 74. As noted in paragraph 68, at the time of the visit, there were 18 life-sentenced prisoners at Sofia Prison. Three of them had been integrated into the mainstream prisoner population, while the remainder were being held in a separate unit (Group 1).

75. Material conditions of detention in the lifer unit had remained basically unchanged since the 2006 visit . The installation of integral sanitation in the cells, with a shower head over the toilet and access to hot water all day, was a positive feature; however, as a result, prisoners had less occasions to leave their cells and interact with staff.

Some of the lifers had their own television sets and playstations in th eir cells...

76. As regards activities, one notable change since the 2006 visit was the entry into operation of a social room (“club”) in the lifer unit. This good facility was decorated in pleasant light colours and furnished with bookcases, a chess table with two chairs, a larger table with five chairs, a cupboard with games including a backgammon board, a television set with DVD player and a sink. Lifers were divided into three subgroups on the basis of common interests (playing cards, chess, discussing legal matters, etc.) and each group was allowed to use the social room for one hour each weekday. At weekends, there were only the two officers present, which made it difficult to organise activities.

Lifers who were willing to work (12 of the 15 in the lifers unit) worked in their cells on the same kinds of piece work as was observed on the 2006 visit (e.g. putting strings on boutique bags).

Further, outdoor exercise for one and a half hours per day was offered to all lifers. The delegation noted that a shelter had been provided at one end of the exercise yard.

Despite the above-mentioned welcome introduction of a social room, which increased the amount of time spent out of the cells and in association with other prisoners, the daily regime in the lifer unit remained monotonous. The CPT recommends that the Bulgarian authorities strive to enhance the programme of activities provided to life-sentenced prisoners at Sofia Prison, if necessary, by increasing staffing.

77. Staff on the lifer unit indicated that two of the inmates were in their first 5 years of a life sentence and were therefore subject to particular security restrictions. The two lifers were escorted in handcuffs and were not allowed television. It was up to the Director to review the use of handcuffs, but there was no time limit on their use and no regular review period.

As already stated in the report on the 2006 visit, the CPT considers that there can be no justification for routinely handcuffing a prisoner within a secure environment, provided there is proper staff supervision. The Committee recommends that the Bulgarian authorities review the policy of handcuffing life-sentenced prisoners when outside their cells.

78. The CPT has in the past expressed its serious misgivings about the current legal provisions whereby lifers are systematically subjected to a strict and segregated regime for an initial period ordered by the sentencing court (i.e. 5 years). This approach runs counter to the generally accepted principle that offenders are sent to prison as a punishment, not to receive punishment.

The Committee does not question that it may be necessary for some prisoners to be subject, for a certain period of time, to a special security regime. However, the decision whether or not to impose such a measure should lie with the prison authorities, be based on an individual risk assessment and be applied only for the shortest period of time. A special security regime should be seen as a tool of prison management, and not be made part of the catalogue of criminal sanctions to be imposed by courts.

In many countries, lifers are not viewed as necessarily more dangerous than other prisoners; many of them have a long ‑ term interest in a stable and conflict free environment. Therefore, the approach to the lifer management should proceed from individual risk and needs assessment to allow decisions concerning security, including the degree of contact with others, to be made on a case-by-case basis.

Whereas lifers should not be systematically segregated from other prisoners, special provision should be made to assist lifers and other long ‑ term prisoners to deal with the prospect of many years in prison. In this respect, reference should be made to Rule 103.8 of the European Prison Rules which states that ‘ particular attention shall be paid to providing appropriate sentence plans and regimes for life-sentenced prisoners ’ , taking into consideration the principles and norms laid down in the Council of Europe Recommendation on the ‘ management by prison administrations of life-sentence and other long term prisoners ’ .

Pursuant to Bulgarian law, after the initial 5 years of their sentence, lifers are eligible for allocation within the mainstream prisoner population if they have behaved well and have had no disciplinary punishments. However, in practice, only a minority of lifers (3 out of 18 at Sofia Prison) had found their way into the mainstream, some after many years served in the lifer unit. The CPT invites the Bulgarian authorities to build on the success of the ‘ experiment ’ of integrating some life-sentenced prisoners into the mainstream prison population, which should be considered as an appropriate part of the management of this category of prisoner and reinforced by legislative measures.

More generally, the CPT recommends that the Bulgarian authorities review the legal provisions and practice concerning the treatment of life-sentenced prisoners, in the light of the above remarks. ”

Th e 2008 report contained no particular comments on care and treatment for infectious diseases, including tuberculosis , in Sofia Prison .

59 . The relevant part of the report on the 2014 visit read s as follows :

“ 84. The review of the situation of life-sentenced prisoners in Bulgaria, carried out by the CPT ’ s delegation in the course of the 2014 visit, demonstrated that little – if anything at all – had been done to improve their condition in the light of the Committee ’ s long -standing recommendations...

85. All the prisons visited had a high-security unit in which the vast majority of life-sentenced prisoners were accommodated, the remaining small minority having been allowed to integrate into the mainstream prison population. At the time of the visit, there were ... 21 [life-sentenced prisoners] at Sofia Prison (15 in the high ‑ security unit – Group 1 ) ... . At the time of the visit, there were ... nine [“rea l lifers”] at Sofia Prison ... .

In the absence of any change in the legislation governing the criteria for changing the regime of a lifer (despite repeated recommendations from the CPT to this effect), the very small proportion of life-sentenced prisoners allowed to associate with other sentenced prisoners (non - lifers) is hardly surprising. The CPT calls upon the Bulgarian authorities to review the current legal provisions in order to ensure that the segregation of lifers is based on an individual risk assessment and is applied for no longer than strictly necessary .

86 . ... The lifers ’ cells seen at Sofia and Vratsa were larger (measuring between 8 and 9 m²) and many of them were used for double occupancy.

The material conditions varied from one lifers ’ cell to another in each prison, but they were generally characterised by a more or less advanced state of dilapidation and insalubrity (mould on the walls, water on the floor, etc.). Cells at Sofia Prison had very poor access to natural light but the artificial lighting was adequate. ...

87. Life-sentenced prisoners could take a shower twice a week in the four prisons visited. Apart from Burgas Prison, all cells for lifers were equipped with (partially screened) sanitary annexes, comprising a toilet and a washbasin. ... With the positive exception of Vratsa Prison, the in-cell sanitary annexes, as well as the communal showers, toilets and washing facilities, were generally as dilapidated and dirty as elsewhere in the prisons visited. Further, the situation with respect to personal hygiene items and cleaning products was the same as for the rest of the respective prison populations.

88. In the light of the observations in paragraphs 86 and 87, the CPT calls upon the Bulgarian authorities to take the following steps in respect of material conditions in the units for lifers in the prisons visited:

- take out of service any single cells in which the living space is less than 6 m², in - cell sanitary annexe excluded; ...

- refurbish the lifers ’ cells in all the prisons concerned, paying particular attention to access to natural light at Sofia Prison; in the course of the refurbishment works, all cells should be fitted with fully screened sanitary annexes (i.e. with a partition up to the ceiling) ; ...

These recommendations apply mutatis mutandis to all the cells located in the high - security units of Belene , Burgas , Sofia and Vratsa prisons, including the disciplinary and segregation cells.

As regards the in-cell sanitary annexes, communal toilets, washing and shower facilities at Belene , Burgas and Sofia prisons, and the provision of basic hygiene products as well as materials for cleaning cells, reference is made to the recommendation in paragraph 74 above .

89. Turning to activities, two [lifers had work] at Sofia Prison ...

As regards other activities, lifers at all the prisons visited could have TV and/or radio sets in their cells, as well as books, newspapers and (sometimes) DVD players and playstations . Life - sentenced inmates at Sofia Prison were entitled to an hour and a half of association in a common room per day, which was often not taken as the room was only equipped with a table and chairs and ther e was nothing to do there. ...

90. Outdoor exercise was available for ... an hour and a half per day at Sofia Prison ... . In addition, at Sofia and Vratsa prisons the lifers had access to a gym for one hour, five days a week.

91. The CPT remains of the view that the regime for life-sentenced prisoners in Bulgaria should be fundamentally reviewed, so as to include a structured programme of constructive and preferably out-of-cell activities; educators and psychologists should be proactive in working with life - sentenced prisoners to encourage them to take part in that programme and attempt to engage them safely with other prisoners for at least a part of each day.

Consequently, the Committee reiterates its recommendation that the Bulgarian authorities continue to develop the regime for life-sentenced prisoners, in particular by providing more communal activities (including access to work and education) . ...

93. Overall, the delegation noted in the prisons visited that the security measures with respect to life-sentenced prisoners were being applied on the basis of an individual risk assessment; further, they were regularly reviewed and the aim was to reduce gradually the level of restraints imposed on the inmates. The delegation was positively impressed by the practice observed at Vratsa Prison, where (by decision of the director) life-sentenced prisoners were no longer handcuffed while outside their cells, except when being escorted outside the secure detention areas of the prison; further, custodial officers working with the lifers did not carry truncheons. Also in ... Sofia, most lifers were no longer handcuffed while moving within their units. ...

100. Many times in the past, the Committee has stressed the importance of medical screening of newly-arrived prisoners, in particular in the interests of preventing the spread of transmissible diseases, suicide prevention, and ensuring the timely recording of any injuries.

In all the penitentiary establishments visited, newly-arrived prisoners were in principle seen by health-care staff within 24 hours from their arrival. That said, there were some exceptions: inmates who arrived on a Friday were usually not seen before the following Monday; further, delays of up to seven days were found at ... Sofia prison .

The medical screening process was of a superficial character (if not a mere formality) in most of the establishments visited, and consisted of an interview and taking an inmate ’ s pulse and blood pressure. That said , the procedure at Belene and Vratsa prisons also included the screening for tuberculosis, whereas in the other prisons such a screening was only performed once a year and not on admission; as for Boychinovtsi Correctional Home , TB screening upon arrival was not performed systematically. Other tests (e.g. for HIV, hepatitis B/C) could be performed on a voluntary basis, but none of the establishments did that as a routine measure. ...

The CPT reiterates its recommendation that steps be taken to ensure strict adherence to the rule that all prisoners must be seen by a health-care staff member immediately upon arrival, as specified in the law . The medical examination on admission should be comprehensive, including a physical examination . ”

LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

60 . The applic ant alleged that he had not received the medical care required for his s tat e of health during his incarceration , and also complained about the material conditions of detention and the prison regime in Burgas P rovisional D etention Facility and Burgas and Sofia Prisons . He relied on A rticle 3 of the Convention, which provides :

Article 3

“ N o one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . ”

A. Admissibility

1. The parties ’ submissions

61 . The Government submitted that the domestic remedies had not been exhausted . They pointed out that the applic ant had not brought an action for damages as provided for in section 1 of the Law on State and M unicipal R esponsibility for D amage . That action was a remedy well- established in the case-law of the domestic courts which would have enabled the applic ant to secure recognition of the breach of his right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and might , if appropriate, have l ed to the award of pecuniary compensation.

62 . The applic ant submitted that an action for damages under section 1 of the Law on State and M unicipal Responsibility for D amage could not be deemed an effective remedy in his case , as such an action was solely compensatory in nature and could not be used to improve his material conditions of detention . Those conditions had remained unchanged from 1999 to 2005, when the prison authorities had implemented a programme to rehabilitate the high- security wing of Sofia Prison . However, even after 2005 life prisoners continued to be separated from the rest of the prison population and had insufficient out-of-cell activities , which cannot be regarded as a situation compatible with A rticle 3 of the Convention.

63 . The applicant added that before 2007, when the legislature introdu ced a flat-rate court fee of BGN 10 , the court fees payable for an action for damages against the S tat e had been proportional to the amount claimed , which had constituted an unfair obstacle to prisoners wishing to bring such an action . Moreover , the domestic courts had awarded very low compensation in cas es similar to that of the applic ant.

64 . The action for damages had been ineffective vis-à-vis the applicant ’ s strict prison regime, given that the latter had been imposed on the basis of the legislation in force at the time and that its implementation by the prison authorities had not been regarded by the courts as an unlawful act.

65 . Nor could an action for damages against the S tat e constitute an effective remedy vis-à-vis the alleged lack of appropriate medical care in prison , in view of the permanent risk of fresh contamination in the prison . Furthermore , the applic ant not been provided with an appropriate diet and his request for more daily open-air rejected .

2. The Court ’ s assessment

a) The alleged lack of appropriate medical care in prison

66 . The applic ant complained , first of all , of the lack of appropriate medical care in prison.

67 . T he Court r eiterates that under A rticle 3 of the Convention, the S tat e must protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example by providing them with the requisite medical assistance ( see Mouisel v . France , n o. 67263/01, § 40, E CH R 2002 ‑ IX , and Farbtuhs v . Latvia , n o. 4672/02, § 51, 2 December 2004).

68 . The Court sees no need to consider the Government ’ s objection that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies in the present case because it considers that in any event the complaint is inadmissi ble f or the reasons set out below .

69 . The Court observe s that the applic ant was monitored by the prison doctors during his hunger strike in Burgas Prison in June and July 2001 . A fter a certain lapse of time he was taken to hospital because of his deteriorating state of health, and was returned to Burgas Prison a fter he had fully recovered ( see paragraph 45 above ).

70 . In October 2004, that is to say eight months a fter his transfer to Sofia Prison , he contracted tuberculosis ( see paragraph 46 above ). He was taken into the prison hospital where he received the requisite medical treatment , since the results of his regular check-up s showed that his illness had not returned ( see paragraph 47 above ). According to the prison authorities ’ reports, which the applicant does not dispute, the prison doctors are keeping him under constant surveillance (ibid.).

71 . In 2010 and 2011 he was once again hospitalised for chronic headaches and insomni a . The doctors detected no serious complications and his state of health improved after his stay in the prison hospital . Furthermore, the applic ant had several appointments with two dentists – the prison dentist and another dentist chosen by his relatives ( see paragraphs 48-49 above ).

72 . In the light of these facts the Court does not consider that the Bulgarian prison authorities failed to comply with their obligation to provide the applic ant with appropri ate medical card . It was clearly while in prison that the applic ant contract ed tuberculosis . H owever , the Court reiterates that this fact in itself does not incur the State ’ s responsibility under Article 3, provided that he received treatment for the illness ( see, among many other authorities, Alver v . Estonia , n o. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005 ; Pitalev v . Russia , n o. 34393/03 , § 53, 30 July 2009 ; and Gladkiy v . Russia , n o. 3242/03 , § 88, 21 December 2010). It transpires from the case file that the applic ant was treated at the prison hospital , that he is under constant surveillance by the prison doctors and that he has had no relapse of tuberculosis since 2004 . The case file also shows that the applicant ’ s hospital treatment and ongoing medical surveillance are part of a prevention and screening programme for tuberculosis in prisons run by the prison authorities ( see paragraphs 50 and 57 above ). The Court also observe s that the reports on the CPT visits to Sofia Prison do not include any particular criticism of the medicinal treatment or the medical supervision of prisoners suffering from tuberculosis ( see paragraphs 57 and 59 above ).

73 . The Court therefore considers that this complaint as submitted by the applicant is manifest ly ill- founded and should accordingly be reject ed pursuan t to A rticle 35 §§ 3 a) and 4 of the Convention.

b) The material conditions of detention and the applicant ’ s prison regime

74 . Th e applicant complained of the material conditions of detention in the Burgas Provisional Detention Facility and Burgas and Sofia Prisons . He also complained of the prison regime under which he was serving his life sentence.

75 . The Government submitted that the domestic remedies had not been exhausted. They pointed out that the applicant had not brought an action for damages as provided for in section 1 of the Law on State and municipal responsibility for damage .

76 . The Court r eiterates that the rule set out in A rticle 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies that are normally available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain, in practice as well as in theory, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness ( see, among many other authorities, Salman v . Turkey [GC], n o. 21986/93 , § 81, E CH R 2000 ‑ VII, and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], n o. 22277/93 , § 58, E CH R 2000 ‑ VII).

77 . I t is incumbent on the Government claiming that domestic remedies have not been exhausted to satisfy the Court that the remedy which it claims the applic ant has not used was an effective one available in theory and in practice. However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement to use that remedy ( see Akdivar and Others v . Turkey , 16 September 1996, § 68, Re ports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ IV).

78 . According to the established case-law of the Court , re medies of a purely compensatory nature, like the action for damages provided for in section 1 of the Law on State and M unicipal R esponsibility for D amage mentioned by the Government, could only be regarded as effective with respect to applicants who had either been released or placed in Article 3-compliant conditions of detention ( see Harakchiev and Tolumov , cited above , §§ 222-225).

79 . As regards the circumstances of the present case, the Court observe s that the applic ant is still being held in Sofia Prison . Apart from a number of positive changes to his material conditions of detention relating to the area of his cell and the sanita ry facilities installed in it ( see paragraph 42 above ), he is still subject to a highl y restrictive prison regime characterised by isol ation from the rest of the prison population and in sufficient activities ( see paragraphs 41 and 59 above). Given that the domestic courts consider that the manner and method of executing life sentences are not contrary to domestic legislation , no possible action for damages based on section 1 of the Law on State and M unicipal R esponsibility for D amage complaining of such manner and method would stand any chance of success ( see Harakchiev and Tolumov , cited above , §§ 142, 143 and 226). Moreover , the re medy used by the applic ant himself against the provisions of the implementing regulations of the Prisons Act concerning the manner and method of execution of his life sentence was dismissed by the administrative court s on the ground that those provisions were in conform ity with higher-level legislation ( see paragraph 44 above ). Consequently, the remedy mentioned by the Government is incapable of offering redress for the alleged violation of A rticle 3.

80 . The Government ’ s objection of non-exhaustion must accordingly be dismissed .

81 . The Court also notes that the present complaint is not manifest ly ill- founded for the purposes of A rticle 35 § 3 a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds . I t should therefore be declared admissi ble.

B. Merits

1. The parties ’ submissions

a) The applic ant

82 . The applic ant submitted that he had been held for many year s in appalling material conditions of detention in three different prisons : he had been locked up in small, dilapidated cell s without in-cell sanita tion or adequate lighting, ventilation or hygiene .

83 . Those material conditions had been compounded with a prison regime which subjected him to continu ous isolation from the rest of the prison population and afforded him insufficient out-of-cell activities .

84 . The applic ant took the view that the negative effects of those conditions of detention and his prison regime exceeded the severity threshold for application of A rticle 3 and that he had therefore suffered inhuman and degrading treatment .

b) Th e Government

85 . Th e Government contested the applic ant ’ s argument . They pointed out that in incarcerating the applic ant in the three prisons in question the authorities had in no way inten ded to subject him to treatment incompatible with A rticle 3 of the Convention.

86 . The Government submitted that the applicant was currently being held in a cell which was of a decent size , was well furnished and had all the necessary sanitary facilities . He had time in the open air every day and other access to other activities available in Sofia Prison : visit s to the library , attendance at religious services and receipt and expedition of correspondence .

87 . Th e Government considered that the severity threshold for the applica bility of Article 3 had not been attained i n the present case. They therefore invite d the Court to dismiss the applic ant ’ s complaint under that A rticle of the Convention.

2. The Court ’ s assessment

88 . The Court r eiterates 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. The assessment of th at minimum 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 or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim ( see , among many other authorities , Ireland v . the Uni ted Kingdom , 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A n o. 25). The main question facing the Court in the present case is therefore whether the applicant ’ s material conditions of detention , taken in co njunction with the m anner and method of executing his life sentence, exceeded the severity threshold req uired for the application of A rticle 3 of the Convention.

89 . Th e applic ant has been incarcerated since October 1999. Since that date he has been held in three different establishments : the Burgas Provisional Detention Facility , Burgas Prison and Sofia Prison .

90 . The Court notes that the parties agree on the inadequacy of the material conditions which prevailed in the Burgas Provisional Detention Facility between October 1999 and April 2000, when the applicant was held there ( see paragraphs 33-34 above). Th e report o n the 1999 CPT visit corroborates this finding ( see paragraph 54 above ).

91 . Th e applic ant was subsequently transferred to Burgas Prison , where he remained from 2000 to 2004 ( see paragraph 32 above ). In the report on its 2002 visit the CPT delegation stated that the wing for life prisoners in Burgas Prison where the applic ant ’ s cell was locat ed had recently been refurbished , that the individual cells had an area of 6 m 2 each and had adequate ventilation and lighting . Th e main problem noted by the CPT delegation had been the restricted access to the shared sanitary facilities and the use of buckets as toilets by the prisoners ( see paragraph 55 above ).

92 . On 25 February 2004 the applic ant was transferred to Sofia Prison , where he continue d to serve his sentence . According to the reports of the 2006, 2008 and 2014 CPT visits to that prison, all the cells in th e prison ’ s h igh- security wing had in-cell sanitary faciliti es ( see paragraphs 57-59 above ). According to information presented by the Government , this section of the prison was renovated in 2005 and 2006 , and the applic ant benefited from a decent-sized individual cell ( see paragraph 42 above ). However , the report of the CPT ’ s visit in 2014 once again singles out the general dilapidation of the area of Sofia Prison reserved for prisoners serving life sentences, and the lack of daylight and insufficient hygiene in the premises ( see paragraph 59 above ).

93 . The Court notes that throughout his years in prison the manner and method of executing the applic ant ’ s life sentence , as determined by the prison regime assigned to him, were highly restrictive. Th e applic ant had initial ly been assigned a so-called “special” prison regime : he had spent twenty- three hours a day locked up in his cell, mostly on his bed ; h is access to the prison library had been limited to the few minutes it took to choose and borrow a book ; h e had been allowed to attend the prison chapel twice a year, with a ban on meet ing other prisoners ( see paragraphs 38 and 40 above ). In 2008 his prison regime was relaxed ( see paragraph 41 above). However, like all prisoners in his category, he was still kept separate from the rest of the prison population and his cell was kept lock ed during the day (ibid . ). The successive CPT reports show that the prisoners in the high- security wing of Sofia Prison have very few out-of-cell activities and are kept separated from the other prisoners ( see paragraphs 57-59 above ).

94 . In the light of the foregoing facts and as it noted in the recent judgment in the case of Harakchiev and Tolumov , cited above , §§ 203-214, the Court considers that the applicant ’ s poor conditions of detention taken in conjunction with the restrictive regime under which he is serving his life sentence and the length of the prison term in question, subjected the applicant to an ordeal far exceeding the suffering inherent in the execution of a prison sentence . The Court therefore finds that the severity threshold required for the application of A rticle 3 of the Convention was exceeded in the present case . The applic ant was placed in an ongoing situation of infringement of his right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment .

95 . There was therefore a violation of A rticle 3 of the Convention.

II. THE ALL E GE D VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

96 . In his observations of 12 April 2012 the applicant com plain e d that he had no domestic remedy capable of providing redress for alleged violations of A rticle 3. He relied on A rticle 13 of the Convention, which provides :

Article 13

“ Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity . ”

97 . The Court observe s that the applic ant submitted two separate complaints under Article 3 of the Convention , the first concerning the la ck of adequate medical care, and the second the material conditions of detention and the prison regime .

98 . As regards the complaint concerning the alleged lack of adequate medical care in prison , it should be observed that the Court had declared it i nadmissi ble as being manifestly ill- founded ( see paragraphs 66-73 above ). I t follows that the applic ant ’ s complaint in this respect is not an “argu able claim” , which is a prerequisite for complaining of a possible violation of A rticle 13. That part of his application is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be reject ed pursuan t to Article 35 §§ 3 a) and 4 of the Convention.

99 . As regards the other complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, namely the absence of a domestic remedy against his conditions of detention, the Court observes that in 2010 the applicant appealed to the Bulgarian administrative courts against the provisions of the implementing regulations of the Prisons Act governing specific aspects of his restrictive prison regime. That appeal was ultimate ly dismissed by the Supreme A dministrative Court on 14 September 2011 ( see paragraph 44 above ). Having regard to the circumstances of the case , the Court considers that the latter date should be taken as the starting point of the six- mo nth time-limit on lodging the complaint under A rticle 13 concerning the poor conditions of detention . However , the applic ant did not lodge that complaint until 12 April 2012, that is to say seven years ten months after lodging the aforementioned complaints under A rticle 3 alone , and seven months after the relevant final decision . I t follows that that complaint was lodged out of time and must be rejected pursuan t to A rticle 35 §§ 1 and 4 de la Convention.

III. ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 3 c) TAKEN IN CO NJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

100 . The applic ant alleged that he had not been assisted by a lawyer during the first few days of his detention . In his observations of 12 April 2012 he also complained that the subsequent interviews with his lawyers in the Provisional Detention Facility had been held in the presence of the investigator . He relied on A rticle 6 §§ 1 and 3 c), which provide :

Article 6

“ 1 . In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by [a] tribunal .. .

3 . Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

c ) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require ... ”

A. Admissibility

101 . Th e applic ant first of all com plain ed tha t he had not been assisted by a lawyer during the first few days of his detention . The Court notes that that complaint is not manifest ly ill- founded within the meaning of A rticle 35 § 3 a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other ground . I t must therefore be declared admissi ble.

102 . As regards the applicant ’ s second complaint, namely that he was unable to have confidential conversations with his lawyers during his detention, the Court observes that that claim was made for the first time in the applicant ’ s observations of 12 April 2012, that is to say more than twelve years after the events in question (see paragraphs 10-16 above) and eight years and four months after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (see paragraph 30 above). I t follows that that complaint was lodged out of time and must be rejected pursuant to A rticle 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

B. The merits

1. The p arties ’ submissions

103 . Th e applic ant submitted that he had been arrested in Sofia on 3 October 1999 and that the next day he had been transferred to Burgas . For the first three days of his detention he had been questioned by the polic e officers without a lawyer , despite express requests for the assist ance of a defence lawyer . On 6 October 1999 he had had a short conversation with an officially appointed lawyer just before being charged with holding up a bureau de change and murdering two persons .

104 . Th e applic ant pointed out that access to a lawyer was one of the essential safeguards of any fair criminal trial. In his case , even though the initia l questioning conducted by the police officers had not, from the legal angle , formed part of the preliminary investigation against him , his inability to meet with a lawyer during that initial period of his detention had infringed his right of defence and his right to a fair trial .

105 . The Government contested the applic ant ’ s argument . They pointed out that the applic ant had been charged and questioned for the first time on 6 October 1999 in the presence of an officially appointed lawyer . No investigative measure had been carried out during the previous three days. Moreover, given that domestic legislation guaranteed access to a lawyer as from the time of placement in detention, the applicant could have asked to contact a lawyer of his choice well before 6 October 1999, which he had not seen fit to do .

106 . Furthermore , the applicant had remained silent . He ha d not confess ed the offences until 21 October 1999, when he had already secured the assistance of lawyers of his choice . Under those circumstances the Government s ubmitted that the fact that the applic ant had not been assisted by a lawyer for the first few days of his detention had not infringed his right to effective defence in the framework of the criminal proceedings against him . The fairness of the criminal proceedings had therefore been respected .

2. The Court ’ s assessment

107 . The Court r eiterates that the guarantees under the criminal aspect of Article 6 – especially paragraph 3 – may also be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with them ( see Imbrioscia v . S witzerland , 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A n o. 275).

108 . The Court has affirme d on several occasions that the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 3 c), is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial ( see Poitrimol v . France , 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A n o. 277 ‑ A, and Demebukov v . Bulgaria , n o. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008). That being the case , A rticle 6 § 3 c) leaves to the Contracting States the choice of the means of ensuring that it is secured in their judicial systems, the Court ’ s task being only to ascertain whether the method they have chosen is consistent with the requirements of a fair trial ( see Imbrioscia , cited above , § 38).

109 . I n order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” (see paragraph 51 above), Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6. The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction ( see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], n o. 36391/02, § 55, E CH R 2008).

110 . Moreover , la Court has found that a systematic prohibition of legal assistance for suspects while in police custody, on the basis of the relevant statutory provisions, constitutes a violation of Article 6, notwithstanding that the applicant remained silent when questioned in police custody ( see Dayanan v. Turkey , n o. 7377/03 , § 33, 13 October 2009).

111 . The Court observe s at the outset that a distin ction must be made between the present case and the case of Dayanan , cited above , inasmuch as, unlike Turkish legislation at the material time, the relevant Bulgarian legislation did not restrict the right of detainees to be assisted by lawyers of their choice as from the time of their arrest. Section 70 [ 4 ] of the former Law on the Interior Ministry guaranteed the applic ant ’ s access to a lawyer as from the time of his arrest by the police on 3 October 1999, and A rticle 73 § 1 of the former C ode of Criminal Procedure extended the same guarantee to the applicant ’ s detention as order ed on 4 October 1999 by the preliminary investigation authorities ( see paragraphs 52 and 53 above ). Tho se rules were not subject to derogation .

112 . The parties agree d that the applic ant nonetheless did not actually benefit from this legal safeguard . The Government submitted that the applic ant had not asked to consult a lawyer during that period ( see paragraph 105 above ). The applicant stated the opposite ( see paragraph 103 above ). The Court is not in a position to determine whethe r the fact that the applic ant had no contact with a lawyer before 6 October 1999 was due to his own passivity or , as he would appear to claim , to the authorities ’ mala fide . However that may be , the Court considers that it must now ascertain, in the light of its established case-law , particularly the principles set out in its Salduz judgment , cited above , whether the fact complained of by the applic ant irremediably diminished the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole .

113 . The Court first of all observe s that no case paper indicates that the applic ant was questioned during the first three days of his detention in the absence of a lawyer ( see , by contrast , Salduz , cited above , § 14, and Adamkiewicz v. Poland , n o. 54729/00 , § 87, 2 March 2010 ). All his interrogations by the authorities responsible for conducting the criminal investigation against him took place after he had been formally charged on 6 October 1999 , in the presence of a lawyer ( see paragraphs 10-12 and 16 above ). No other investigative measure involving the applic ant had been implemented during the three days when he was not assisted by a lawyer ( see, by contrast , Mehmet Şerif Öner v . Turkey , n o. 50356/08 , § 21, 13 September 2011).

114 . The applicant remained silent during his initial interrogations by the investigator , in the presence of his lawyers , on 6 and 12 October 1999 . He did not confess until 21 October 1999, when he was being assisted by a lawyer of his choice during questioning ( see paragraph 12 above ). Admittedly, the applic ant subsequently retracted his initial confession, presenting a version of events to the effect that the crimes of which he was suspected had been committed by a foreigner ( see paragraphs 14, 16 and 25 above ). No twithstanding that fact , the Court considers that the applic ant cannot claim not to have known, at the time of his confession t o having taken part in the hold-up in question, that the initial confession could be used in evidence against him during the criminal proceedings .

115 . The applic ant ’ s confession was indeed used as a relevant piece of evidence during his trial. However, it is clear that his con vic tion was not based exclusively on that confession . The domestic courts took into account other evidence corrobora ting the version of events whereby the applicant had indeed organised the hold-up in question and had encouraged his ac complice A.S. to open fire on the two victims . During his trial he was assisted by lawyers of his choice . He was allowed to present his version of events , to put forward arguments in favour of his acquitt al and to secure the gathering of exculpatory evidence . The domestic courts provided detailed reasons for their judgments ( see paragraphs 18-31 above ).

116 . The Court accordingly finds that the fact that the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer for the first three days of his detention did not diminish his right to defend himself effectively in the framework of the criminal proceedings. His right not to incriminate himself was respected and the fairness of the criminal proceedings was properly ensured . There was therefore no violation of A rticle 6 § 3 c) taken in conjunction with A rticle 6 § 1 of the Convention.

IV. THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

117 . 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 . ”

A. Damages

118 . The applic ant clame d 28, 000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage which he allegedly su stain ed .

119 . Th e Government considered this claim ex cessive .

120 . The Court considers that the applic ant su stain ed some level of non- pecuniary damage owing to the poor conditions to which he was exposed in the prisons and other places of detention in which he was held and to the restrictive prison regime imposed on him . In order to determine th e amount of compensation to be awarded in the present case , the Court holds that regard should be had to the applicant ’ s protracted period of detention , the entirety of the inappropriate material conditions in the three places of detention in which he was held over the years and the ongoing imposition of a prison regime providing in suffi cient opportunities for human contact and out-of-cell activities . In the light of the aforementioned circumstances and bearing in mind the amounts awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage in other similar cas es against Bulgaria ( see in particular Harakchiev and Tolumov , cited above , § 286), the Court considers that the applic ant should be paid a total of 8, 000 EUR under this head .

B. Costs and e x pens es

121 . The applic ant also claimed 1 , 910 EUR and 1 , 329 Bulgarian L evs (BGN) in respect of costs and ex pens es incurred before the Court . He requested that the sum of 1 , 910 EUR be paid direct ly into the ban k account of his representative , M s S. Margaritova-Vuchkova .

122 . Th e Government considered that claim ex cessive and unsubstantiated .

123 . According to the Court ’ s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers the sums requested in respect of costs and ex pens es reasonable and justified and awards them to the applic ant. It also accepts the request that the sum of 1,910 EUR be paid directly into his representative ’ s account, and that the sum of 679.50 EUR (corresponding to 1,329 BGN) be paid into the applicant ’ s bank account.

C. Default interest

124 . 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 COUR T UNANIM OUSLY

1. Declares the application admissi ble as regards the complaint under A rticle 3 concerning the applicant ’ s material conditions of detention and his prison regime and the complaint under A rticle 6 § 3 c) taken in co njunction with A rticle 6 § 1 concerning the l a ck of access to a lawyer during the first three days of his detention , and inadmissi ble f or the remainder ;

2. Holds that there was a violation of A rticle 3 of the Convention ;

3. Holds that there was no violation of A rticle 6 § 3 c) taken in co njunction with A rticle 6 § 1 of the Convention ;

4. Holds

a) that the respondent S tat e is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following sums , to be converted into Bulgarian Levs (BGN) a t the ap plicable rate on the date of payment :

i ) 8 , 000 EUR ( eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on this sum, in respect of non-pecuniary damage ;

ii) 2,589.50 EUR (two thousand five hundred and eight-nine euros and fifty cents), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on this sum, in respect of costs and expenses, including 679.50 EUR (six hundred and seventy-nine euros and fifty cents) to be paid directly into the applicant ’ s account, and 1,910 EUR (one thousand nine hundred and ten euros) to be paid into his legal representative ’ s account;

b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points ;

5. Rejects the claim for just satisfaction for the remainder .

Done in French, and notified in writing on 20 October 2015 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court .

             Françoise Elens-Passos Guido Raimondi Registrar President