Bulgaria / Sofia City Court / 2237/2016

D.M.S. v Director of prison in the town of S.
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Sofia City Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
28/06/2016
  • Bulgaria / Sofia City Court / 2237/2016

    Key facts of the case: 

    Mr S, deprived of liberty, became eligible for transfer from a prison hostel of closed type to a prison hostel of open type. However, he was continuously not included in the list of inmates to be transferred by the commission for execution of penalties (комисия по изпълнение на наказанията) due to negative assessments of his requests made by the relevant inspectors. Thus, his transfer was practically refused, although without a formal reasoned decision by the commission. The formal reasoned decision included only the list of those approved for transfer. The reasons given for that during the hearing were various: the commission was awaiting the sentence on a pending case against Mr S, then time was needed to process his file, his risk of recidivism was high, he had previous violations of the prison regime, etc. Mr S appealed against not being put forward for transfer and requested the court itself to order the change.

    Outcome of the case: 

    The Court found that the appellant was practically refused transfer, although the commission, unlawfully, did not state that explicitly and never gave any reasoning for this ultimate outcome. Thus, the Court repealed the informal refusal, but ruled that it is only the commission that can decide on the issue.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    “Without repeating its reasoning, stated in the ruling of 20 June 2016, the Court finds it necessary to state once again that the right to effective remedy for protecting fundamental human rights is proclaimed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – Art. 6, par. 1 and Art. 13 and by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – Art. 17 [the Court means Art. 47]. Based on the reasoning of the ruling of 20 June 2016, the court finds that the non-admission of the present appeal to judicial control would  constitute a violation not only of the national legal principle, set also in the Constitution, of judicial control over violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, but also a limitation of the right to effective remedy, set in ECHR and the Charter. […]

    Title VI ‘Justice’, Art. 47, par. 1 of the Charter explicitly states that ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal’, which corresponds to the norm of Art. 13, para. 1 of the ECHR, which also explicitly states that ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    “Без да преповтаря съображенията си, изложени в определението му от 20.06.2016 г., Съдът намира за необходимо да посочи още веднъж, че правото на ефективни гаранции за защита на основни права на човека е прокламираното и от Конвенцията за защита на правата на човека и основните свободи (КЗПЧОС) - чл. 6, § 1 и чл. 13, и от Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз (ХОПЕС) - чл. 17. Съобразно и вече изложените мотиви на съда в цитираното му определение от 20.06.2016 г., настоящият съд намира, че евентуалното недопускане на настоящата жалба до съдебен контрол би представлявало освен нарушение на последователно прокарания и закрепен и в Конституцията принцип на съдебен контрол върху евентуалното нарушаване на основните права и свободи, също така и ограничаване на посочените по-горе, установени от КЗПЧОС и ХОПЕС, гаранции за ефикасна съдебна защита. […]

    В Дял VI, "Правосъдие", чл. 47, ал. 1 от ХОПЕС, изрично е посочено, че "Всеки, чиито права и свободи, гарантирани от правото на Съюза, са били нарушени, има право на ефективни правни средства за защита пред съд", което пряко кореспондира с нормата на чл. 13, ал. 1 от КЗПЧОС, в която също изрично е отразено, че "Всеки, чиито права и свободи, провъзгласени в тази Конвенция, са нарушени, има право на ефикасни правни средства за тяхната защита пред съответните национални власти, дори и нарушението да е извършено от лица, действащи при упражняването на служебни функции."