Communicated on 28 November 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 63397/12 Evgeni Plamenov BAYRAKOV against Bulgaria lodged on 26 September 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Evgeni Plamenov Bayrakov , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Sofia. He is represented before the Court by Ms T. Chobanova , a lawyer practising in Sofia.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 25 March 2012 the applicant and other supporters of a Sofia football club travelled to Plovdiv to attend a football match. Before the match they got into a fight with supporters of the opposing club during which glass bottles and stones were also thrown at passers-by. After the police arrived, the applicant and other participants in the fight were arrested.

Proceedings under the Preservation of Public Order During Sporting Events Act 2004 (hereinafter “the 2004 Act”, see Relevant domestic law and practice below) were opened against the applicant, and on the next day, 26 March 2012, he was brought before the Plovdiv District Court. He was legally represented and refused to make a statement.

In a judgment of the same day the Plovdiv District Court found that the applicant was guilty of sport hooliganism, as defined in section 21 of the 2004 Act, and imposed on him the following punishments provided for under section 25(1) of the same Act: a fine of 300 Bulgarian levs (BGN, the equivalent of 153 euros – EUR), thirteen-day detention in a police facility, and a one-year ban on attending sporting events in Bulgaria and abroad.

The judgment stated that it was final. It was immediately enforced and the applicant was brought to a facility in Plovdiv, where he remained in detention until 8 April 2012.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The 2004 Act ( Закон за опазване на обществения ред при провеждането на спортни мероприятия ) provides for different measures for the preservation of public order during sporting events and for punishments for breaches of that order.

Under section 21 of the Act, the administrative offence of sport hooliganism ( спортно хулиганство ) is defined as disorderly conduct during or in relation to a sporting event, where such conduct does not constitute a criminal offence. Sport hooliganism comprises, among others, the throwing of objects and the participation in a fight. By section 25(1) of the 2004 Act, as worded at the relevant time, sport hooliganism was punishable by detention in a police facility for up to fifteen days, a fine of between BGN 200 (EUR 102) and BGN 500 (EUR 256), and a ban on attending sporting events during a period of up to two years. At the relevant time, such measures were to be decided upon by the respective district court (sections 32-33 of the 2004 Act).

At the time, section 34(1) of the 2004 Act provided that a district court ’ s judgment would be final. In August 2018 the provision was amended, and now provides that judgments of the district courts are subject to appeal before the respective regional court. However, even before that amendment, regional courts accepted such appeals for examination on some occasions, finding in particular that section 34 of the 2004 Act contradicted Article 5 § 4 and Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 ( Решение № 1398 от 11.12.2012 г. на СГС по в. а. н. д. № 5244/2012 г. ; Решение от 15.04.2013 г. на ОС - Силистра по к. а. н. д. № 109/2013 г. ; Решение № 1281 от 11. 11 .2013 г. на СГС по в. а. н. д. № 3924/2013 г. ).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 about the impossibility of appealing against the Plovdiv District Court ’ s judgment of 26 March 2012.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant afforded the right of appeal envisaged by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7? Did the absence of an appeal in the present case fall within the exceptions laid down by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 7?

The parties are requested to provide details on decisions of the regional courts which accepted appeals against judgments convicting individuals of sport hooliganism prior to the 2018 legislative amendments authorising expressly such appeals, explaining the basis on which they did so.