Bulgaria found in violation of prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment by European Court of Human Rights

Strasbourg, 12 October 2006. The European Court of Human Rights issued a Chamber judgment in the case of Staykov v. Bulgaria.

The Court held unanimously that there had been:

• a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; 
• a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the Convention;
• no violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation for unlawful detention).

Principal facts

The applicant, Stiliyan Atanasov Staykov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Shumen.

On 23 December 1991 he was arrested and charged with the murder of his friend’s 81-year-old adoptive mother. He was acquitted in April 2005.

During his period of detention he made numerous unsuccessful applications for release. He was eventually released on bail on 9 December 1998. In its decision Varna Regional Court found that the length of the applicant's detention had exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights and set the bail at 2,000,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). It did not give any reason for choosing that sum and the order was not subject to appeal.

The applicant was not released immediately as he was unable to secure the amount. Following an unsuccessful attempt to have it reduced by the court, he posted bail and was released on 17 December 1998.

The applicant spent most of his time in detention at Varna Prison and the remainder at the Varna Regional Investigation Service’s detention facilities. He submitted that he was kept in a cell there which measured ten square meters, and which he shared at times with three or four other inmates. He also alleged that at night they had to relieve themselves in a bucket kept in the cell. He maintained that in 1992-93 hot water for showering was available once a week, whereas later, in 1998, it was only available once a month. As a result he often had to take cold showers, which had a negative impact on his health. He claimed that in prison he was allowed to take walks for approximately 40 minutes a day, whereas at the VRIS he could not take walks at all.

In July 1998 he was diagnosed with tuberculosis. Reports on the applicant's mental health noted that he also suffered from depression.

On 2 November 2000 the applicant issued a civil action against the Prosecutor's Office and the Varna Regional Investigation Service complaining, among other things, about the length of his detention and the criminal proceedings against him. On 23 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation found that the length of his pre-trial detention had breached the law and that, the proceedings determining the criminal charge against him between 1991 and 2003 were excessively long. It awarded the applicant 5,000 new Bulgarian levs (BGN) (2,556.46 euros) plus interest.

Summary of the judgment

The applicant complained in particular about the length and conditions of his pre-trial detention and about the length and unfairness of criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Articles 3, 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 and Article 6 § 1.

Decision of the Court

Article 3

The Court noted that the applicant's description of his conditions of detention at Varna RIS Prison largely coincided with the CPT's findings in its 1995 and 1999 reports which described conditions at the Investigation Service's detention facilities as inhuman and degrading. The Court noted in particular that there were no possibilities for out of cell activities and that, apart from his daily 40 minute walk, the applicant had to spend most of his day in his overcrowded cell.

The Court further noted that in 1998 the applicant fell ill with tuberculosis, which was apparently endemic to the Bulgarian prison system at that time. During its visit in 1999 the CPT found that the prison authorities' efforts to contain the disease were inadequate, as was the care provided for inmates suffering from the illness.
The combination of those factors, seen against the background of the inordinate length of the applicant's detention lasting almost seven years, led the Court to conclude that the conditions of his detention and their detrimental effect on his health amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3.

Article 5 §§ 4 and 5

The Court noted that the applicant was unable to challenge the bail amount ordered by Varna Regional Court, and had to remain in custody. The Court recalled that, according to its case-law, the amount of bail had to be set with reference to the detainees' assets. Since what was at stake was the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed by Article 5, the Court added, the authorities were to take as much care in fixing appropriate bail as in deciding whether or not continued detention was indispensable. It followed that where an accused remained in custody despite an order for his or her release on bail, the question whether or not its amount was justified was an issue related to the lawfulness of the continued detention and had to be subject to judicial review. However, the applicant was unable to obtain such a review.

The Court therefore concluded that the domestic courts did not adequately review the applicant's detention and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.

As to the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 5, the Court considered that the Supreme Court of Cassation's judgment of 23 December 2005 awarding the applicant compensation for his detention, coupled with the possibility to make a claim under the State Responsibility for Damage Act of 1988 was sufficient for the purposes of that provision. Consequently, it held unanimously that there has been no violation of that Article.

Articles 5 §3 and 6 §1

The Court held that it could not examine the merits of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1, as he had already received compensation for the excessive duration of his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him.

The Court awarded the applicant 4,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.