AFFAIRE SVETOSLAV HRISTOV CONTRE LA BULGARIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)151 [1] Svetoslav Hristov împotriva Bulgariei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Cercetarea nr. 36794/03, Hotărârea din 13 ianuarie 2011, definitivă la 13 aprilie 2011) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede că el supraveghează executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "menționate mai jos " Convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcările constatate (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in intergrom ; și măsuri generale pentru prevenirea unor încălcări similare care au invitat guvernul din statul membru în cauză să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor menționate anterior După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)923E) ; DECLAMENTUL CHIIL și-a îndeplinit atribuțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d on . Action report Case of Svetoslav Hristov v. Bulgaria, application no. 36794/03, judgment of 13 January 2011, final on 13 April 2011 Caseta privitoare la încălcări grave ale articolului 5 din Convenție, raportează că a deținut aplicantul pentru șase zile în 2003: 1) încălcarea articolului 5 alineatul (1) litera (c) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. Domestic law did not prohibit explicitly two consecutive periods of prosecutor-ordered detention for up to three days each on the bazis of two separate provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974; 2) violare of the right to be brought promptly before a judge [art. 5 alineatul (3) ciocănire of o acumulare a celor două consecutive periods of three-day detention mentioned above before the applicant was brought before a judge; 3) încălcarea articolului 5 alineatul (4) litera (b) din art. 5 alineatul (4) litera (b) din regulamentul de procedură al controlului lawfulness of prosecutor-ordered detention; 4) Încălcarea articolului 5 alineatul (5) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 45/2001 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 25 octombrie 2000 privind protecția persoanelor fizice cu privire la prelucrarea datelor cu caracter personal de către instituțiile și organele comunitare și privind libera circulație a acestor date (JO L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1). The European Court awarded him 4000 in just satisface for the moraly damage suffered, plus costs and expenses. The Government paid these amounts on 01/06/2011 and is of the view that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consecvences of the viols of the applicicants rights. 2) Général Measures Violations of Article 5 § 1(c) and 3: These viols resulted from the application of the supports of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974, which has subsequently been superseded by new legislation. The new Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since 2006, provides for prosecutor-ordered detention only where it is necessary to ensure an acured quearance before the court deciding on his detention on remand (see art. 64 alineatul 2). Such detention cannot last for more than 72 hours. The Government is thus of the view that the specific prosecutor-ordered detention and the possibility of acumulating periods of detention under both of them, has been solved. Violențele articolului 5 §§ 4 and 5: The unavailability of judicial review of prosecutor- ordered detention under Bulgarian law is being examined by the Committee of Ministers in the Kantzhov group (aplicația nr. 68294/01). The lack of any enfortable right to compensation for detention in dispozition of the provision of Article 5 is being examined in the Yankov group (aplicația nr. 39084/97). In view of the considerations above, namely that some of the deficiencies identified by the European Court ave been solved and the remaining ones are being procesed in other groups of cases, the Government is of the view that the present case can be clond. [1] Adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 6 decembrie 2012 cu ocazia celei de a 1157-a reuniuni a Delegatorilor. [2] Numai în limba engleză

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)151

[1]

Svetoslav Hristov contre Bulgarie

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

(Requête n

o

36794/03, arrêt du 13 janvier 2011, définitif le 13 avril 2011)

Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»),

Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et les violations constatées (voir document

DH-DD(2012)923E

)

[2]

;

Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe

1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire

:

-

de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par

restitutio in intergrum

; et

-

de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables

;

Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées

;

Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document

DH-DD(2012)923E

) ;

S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46§1 ont été adoptées

;

DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et

DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Action report

Case of Svetoslav Hristov v. Bulgaria, application no. 36794/03, judgment of

13 January 2011, final on 13 April 2011

The case concerns several violations of Article 5 of the Convention, related to detention of the applicant for six days in 2003:

1) violation of Article 5 § 1(c) due to a breach of the principle of legal certainty as

domestic law did not prohibit explicitly two consecutive periods of prosecutor-ordered detention for up to three days each on the basis of two separate provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974;

2) violation of the right to be brought promptly before a judge (Article 5 § 3) because of

the accumulation of the two consecutive periods of three-day detention mentioned above before the applicant was brought before a judge;

3) violation of Article 5 § 4 because of the lack of a possibility of judicial control of the lawfulness of prosecutor-ordered detention;

4) violation of Article 5 § 5 because of the unavailability in domestic law of an enforceable right to compensation for detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5.

1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

The applicant has been released on bail on 31 October 2003 (§ 13 of the judgment). The European Court awarded him EUR 4,000 in just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, plus costs and expenses. The Government paid these amounts on

01/06/2011 and is of the view that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violations of the applicant’s rights.

2) GENERAL MEASURES

Violations of Article 5 §§ 1(c) and 3: These violations resulted from the application of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974, which has subsequently been superseded by new legislation. The new Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since 2006, provides for prosecutor-ordered detention only where it is necessary to ensure an accused’s appearance before the court deciding on his detention on remand (see Article 64 § 2). Such detention cannot last for more than 72 hours.

The Government is thus of the view that the specific problem giving rise to the violations of Article 5 §§ 1(c) and 3 in the case, namely the existence of two separate provisions on prosecutor-ordered detention and the possibility of accumulating periods of detention under both of them, has been solved.

Violations of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5: The unavailability of judicial review of prosecutor- ordered detention under Bulgarian law is being examined by the Committee of Ministers in the Kandzhov group (application no. 68294/01). The lack of any enforceable right to compensation for detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5 is being examined in the Yankov group (application no. 39084/97).

In view of the considerations above, namely that some of the deficiencies identified by the European Court have been solved and the remaining ones are being examined in other groups of cases, the Government is of the view that the present case can be closed.

[1]

Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.

[2]

En anglais uniquement