Communicated on 27 September 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 60873/09 Georgi Petrov VANCHEV against Bulgaria lodged on 23 October 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Georgi Petrov Vanchev , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Sofia.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In two final judgments of 27 January 1998 and 26 March 2003 the applicant was convicted for several offences. On both occasions he was sentenced to one year of imprisonment. In the second judgment it was in addition held that he would serve one single sentence, which was set at one year of imprisonment.

By that time, in 1996 and 1997 the applicant had already spent one year, six months and twenty-four days in pre-trial detention – in custody and house arrest.

Despite that fact, on 1 July 2003 he was once again detained and placed in prison. He was released on 18 September 2003, after it was established that he had already served his sentence. Thus, the applicant remained in detention for one year, nine months and twelve days. In addition, as he had worked in prison, he was entitled to a reduction of his sentence by seventeen days.

In 2004 the applicant brought a tort action against the prosecution authorities under section 2 (6) of the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (see below, Relevant domestic law and practice), claiming 20,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in non-pecuniary damage for his detention in 1996-9 7 in so far as it exceeded the set term of imprisonment, and BGN 40,000 for his imprisonment between 1 July and 18 September 2003.

The domestic courts found that the applicant had been detained in excess of the sentence imposed on him for a period of nine months and twenty-nine days, holding that that detention was unlawful. In addition, they heard witnesses and a court-appointed psychologist who said that the applicant had been traumatised by the experience and suffered from anxiety, that his personality had been “permanently altered” and he had difficulties when communicating with others, and that his family ties had been “irreparably disturbed”.

In a judgment of 2 May 2006 the Sofia City Court awarded the applicant BGN 10,000 in non-pecuniary damage, plus interest. In accordance with the applicable provisions of domestic law, it ordered him to pay BGN 2,040 (EUR 1,040) in court fees, calculated as a pro rata percentage of the dismissed part of his claim. Its judgment was upheld on 18 June 2007 by the Sofia Court of Appeal.

In a final judgment of 24 April 2009 the Supreme Court of Cassation reduced the award to BGN 3,000 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 1 ,530).

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Section 2 of the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act of 1988 provides, in so far as relevant:

“The State shall be liable for damage caused to [private persons] by organs of ... the investigation, the public prosecution, the courts ... for:

...

6. the execution of a sentence in excess of the set term.”

The provisions concerning court fees in proceedings under that Act, as applicable before 2008, have been summarised in the cases of Stankov v. Bulgaria (no. 68490/01, §§ 19-21, 12 July 2007 ) and Mihalkov v. Bulgaria (no. 67719/01, §§ 21 ‑ 23, 10 April 2008). Following the judgment in the case of Stankov the system was changed as of 30 May 2008. At present, a flat rate court fee is due for filing a claim, which varies depending on the type of the claimant and is either BGN 10 or BGN 25 (approximately EUR 5 or EUR 13).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention of his detention in excess of the set term of imprisonment, claiming that he could not obtain adequate compensation.

2. Relying on Article 5 § 5, he also complain s of having to repay a large part of the compensation awarded to him in court fees.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Can the applicant still be considered a victim of the alleged violation of his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the compensation awarded at the domestic level adequate?

Was the applicant ’ s detention in excess of the set term of imprisonment unlawful and accordingly in breach of Article 5 § 1?

2. Was the applicant ’ s right to access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to seek compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention unreasonably restricted in view of the fact that he was ordered to repay in court fees a large part of the compensation awarded by the national courts (see Stankov v. Bulgaria , no. 68490/01, §§ 49-67, 12 July 2007)?