Communicated on 8 July 2020 Published on 27 July 2020

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 56196/16 Teodor Bozhidarov DIMITROV against Bulgaria lodged on 15 September 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Teodor Bozhidarov Dimitrov , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Sofia. He is represented before the Court by Ms V. Teneva , a lawyer practising in Sofia.

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

On 12 April 2014 in the morning the applicant was stopped by police officers in front of his home. The applicant explained that he was on his way to the medical clinic where he was enrolled in a methadone treatment program, in order to receive his daily dose of methadone. After the police officers verified his identity, they handcuffed him and took him to the police station. There, at 10:20 a.m. they issued a written order for the applicant ’ s detention for twenty-four hours.

The detention order mentioned two grounds for that detention, namely points (1) and (5) of section 63(1) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 2006, in force until the end of June 2014 (see Relevant domestic law and practice below). In particular, there were allegedly indications that he had committed an offence (point 1); and his identity could not readily be established on the basis of identity documents, the statements of others, or otherwise (point 5).

The applicant was questioned in relation to a possible involvement in a theft due to his previous convictions for similar thefts. Following the checks performed by the police, the applicant was released at 12.30 a.m. on the same day, or two hours and ten minutes later.

Following his release, in the afternoon of the same day the applicant went to the medical clinic for the administration of a methadone treatment.

On 28 April 2014 the applicant brought a claim for judicial review of the police order for his detention.

In a judgment of 29 July 2014, the Sofia City Administrative Court quashed the police order as unlawful. That court found that the order was issued in breach of the material law and was disproportionate to the objectives and purpose of the law. The court was not satisfied that any of the legal grounds of the order were justified - there was no reasonable suspicion that the applicant was involved in the theft in question (point 1) and his identity could be and was adequately verified (point 5).

On 23 September 2014 the applicant brought a claim under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 against the Sofia Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In the first place, he alleged that his unlawful detention had caused him severe stress and mental discomfort since he was preoccupied by the nature and the gravity of the offence he was suspected of possibly being involved in. In the second place, he alleged that while he was in detention, he was supposed to be at the medical clinic for a regular methadone treatment and feared the consequences of withdrawal in case he would not manage to take the daily dose prescribed. He submitted that these fears caused him additional stress and mental discomfort. Thus, the applicant claimed his illegal detention had resulted in a long term psychological trauma causing him anxiety, depression and nervousness and introduced an initial partial claim for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 2,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (approximately 1 , 000 euros (EUR)), his total claim being in the amount of 5,000 BGN (approximately 2,500 EUR).

In a judgment of 5 June 2015 the Sofia City Administrative Court allowed the applicant ’ s claim partially and awarded him compensation for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 500 BGN (approximately 250 EUR). It found that the applicant had indeed suffered from the unreasonable suspicion against him as a normal reaction of a person who had been unlawfully detained. Regarding the applicant ’ s second plea, the court based its findings on the applicant ’ s psychiatric examination and witness statements. According to the expert report the applicant was psychologically fit and suffered from a heroin addiction. The report stated that the applicant could not have suffered from methadone withdrawal as a result of his approximately two hours ’ detention, because such condition was triggered only on the third or fourth day after the last methadone intake. Hence, in the applicant ’ s case, the delay of methadone intake with a few hours could not lead to the degree and intensity of the alleged suffering.

On 25 June 2015 the applicant appealed on points of law. He argued, inter alia , that the compensation awarded was unfairly low and that the court wrongfully dismissed his plea for mental suffering caused by methadone withdrawal which was a direct consequence of his detention.

In a judgment of 4 July 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim and quashed the lower court ’ s judgment. It first noted that such a short-term detention could not cause discomfort beyond the minimum threshold usual for such a measure. The court further found that the applicant had not suffered any moral damages. In particular, it noted that the applicant had been convicted and had served imprisonment sentences at numerous occasions, hence the experience of detention was not unknown to him, and he was psychologically and physically prepared for it. Thus, the domestic court held that the detention had not caused non ‑ pecuniary damages, since the negative emotions the applicant had experienced were provoked by the detention but were rather a result of his mental state and subjective perceptions. Furthermore, the court found that during the approximately two hours of detention the applicant was kept busy with administrative procedures performed by the police officers, which were moreover a guarantee for his timely release. Therefore, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that there was no proof that the applicant had suffered any non-pecuniary damages beyond the usual negative emotions in such cases.

The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in the judgment Dzhabarov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 6095/11 and 2 others, 31 March 2016, §§ 40-50.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 that his deprivation of liberty was unlawful.

He also complains in substance under Article 5 § 5 that the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his claim for damages in respect of his detention, although the latter had been acknowledged as unlawful by the Sofia City Administrative court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?

2 . Was there a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant was detained unlawfully?

3 . Did the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention? In the affirmative, was the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 4 July 2016 dismissing his claim for damages in conformity with that provision (see Danev v. Bulgaria , no. 9411/05, 2 September 2010 and Dzhabarov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 6095/11 and 2 others, 31 March 2016)?