FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos 15018/11 and 61199/12 Mitko Georgiev HARAKCHIEV against Bulgaria and Liudvik Slavov TOLUMOV against Bulgaria lodged on 22 February 2011 and 11 September 2012 respectively

The facts and complaints in these case s have been summarised in the Court ’ s decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has Mr Harakchiev been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, is his sentence of life imprisonment without commutation ( доживотен затвор без замяна ) compatible with the requirements of that provision?

1.1. What are the penological aims pursued by that punishment and is there any difference – and if so, what – between those aims and the aims pursued by the punishment of life imprisonment with commutation ( доживотен затвор със замяна ). Also, what was the rationale underlying the introduction in 1998 of the punishment of life imprisonment without commutation alongside the punishment of life imprisonment with commutation, put in place three years earlier, in 1995?

1.2. Can it be deduced from the manner in which the presidential power of clemency has been exercised since November 2009, especially in relation to persons serving a sentence of life imprisonment without commutation, that such persons have any hope of release? How did the clemency procedure operate before 23 January 2012, when it was reformed by the current President? Does the clemency procedure, as operating since that date, contain sufficient safeguards, and is the legal basis for that procedure, laid down in rules appended to a presidential decree, sufficiently stable? What is the interrelation between that procedure and the other procedures allowing an adjustment of sentence (commutation by judicial decision and release on licence)?

1.3. Is the detention regime applicable to persons sentenced to life imprisonment without commutation, such as Mr Harakchiev , of a nature to allow them to prove that they have been rehabilitated, and thus to hope to persuade the President or the Vice ‑ President that they should exercise their power of clemency in relation to them?

2. Is the detention regime to which the applicants are subjected in, respectively, Stara Zagora Prison and Plovdiv Prison compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? Do the authorities carry out periodic assessments of the need to maintain that regime and of the effects that it has on the applicants? The Government are requested to provide detailed information about all aspects of that regime and the exact manner in which it has evolved since each of the applicants ’ incarceration, including results (where available) of periodic assessments, involvement in programmes, activities and exercise.

3. Are the material conditions in which the applicants are being kept in, respectively, Stara Zagora Prison and Plovdiv Prison compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide detailed information about those conditions and the exact manner in which they have evolved since each of the applicants ’ incarceration.

4. Has there been an interference with Mr Tolumov ’ s right to respect for his correspondence, enshrined in Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, does the administration of Plovdiv Prison systematically or occasionally control his outgoing and incoming letters? In what exactly does that control consist? If his letters are indeed intercepted and read, as alleged by him, is that interference with his rights under Article 8 “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society” for the achievement of a legitimate aim, as required by paragraph 2 of that Article?

5. Do the applicants have at their disposal a remedy or remedies enabling them to obtain an improvement of the material conditions of their detention and compensation for any damage suffered by them as a result of those conditions, as required under Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, would claims under Articles 256 or 257 of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006 be capable of triggering improvements in the allegedly poor material conditions of their detention?