I incorrectly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in DIMOV v. BULGARIA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2017-06-29
• Communication date: 2015-08-31
• Application number(s): 77248/12
• Country:   BGR
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 3
• Conclusion:
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
• Result: No violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.62104
• Prediction: Violation

• Inconsistent

Communication text used for prediction

1.
The applicant, Mr Dimcho Yordanov Dimov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and is now serving a prison sentence in Varna Prison.
A.
The circumstances of the case 2.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and established by the Court, may be summarised as follows.
1.
Background 3.
On 23 May 2003 the applicant was incarcerated in Varna Prison in execution of a sentence of eighteen years’ imprisonment.
Between October 2008 and June 2009 he was in Vratsa Prison.
After that he was moved back to Varna Prison.
4.
The applicant has a number of chronic medical conditions, among which lumbar degenerative disc disease with associated radiculopathy and damage to the right fibular nerve, osteochondrosis of the spine, carpal tunnel syndrome in the right hand (operated), as well as gastritis and duodenitis.
He further suffers from the consequences of various previous injuries such as fractured ribs following a ribcage contusion complicated at the time by pneumothorax and subcutaneous emphysema, a fracture of the shinbone, and a fracture in 1989 of the right scaphoid bone which was inadequately treated and has resulted in the applicant having difficulty using his right hand.
5.
In the course of his stay in Varna Prison, the applicant made a number of attempts to harm himself: on 28 June 2005 he hit his head against the bars of his cell; on 8 July 2005 he threatened that he would commit suicide; on 4 March 2006 he again hit his head against the bars of his cell and threatened that he would commit suicide; on 9 March 2006 he threatened that he would harm himself; and on 29 June 2006 he hit his head against the walls and the bars of a holding cell in Varna District Court, where he had been taken in connection with a hearing.
6.
Between February and April 2007 the applicant was treated for a mental disorder in Lovech Prison Hospital.
7.
Following his placement in an isolation cell in April 2008, the applicant again threatened that he would harm himself, and between 29 April and 7 May 2008 was almost constantly immobilised by having his hands and feet attached with handcuffs to a bed.
For further details, see Dimcho Dimov v. Bulgaria, no.
57123/08, §§ 10-15, 16 December 2014.
2.
Facts alleged in the present application (a) The incidents of 15 and 21 February 2012 8.
On 15 February 2012 the applicant was assaulted by another inmate, Mr K.I., who pushed his head against the bars of the prison’s barber shop’s window and punched him on the nose.
As a result, the applicant suffered injuries to his head and a nose fracture (see paragraph 13 below).
He alleges that he was not provided with medical treatment for those injuries and was instead segregated in an isolation cell.
9.
Several days later, on 21 February 2012, a prison guard took the applicant to his old cell in order for him to recover his belongings.
Mr K.I.
assaulted him again, hitting him in the jaw.
The guard allegedly did not do anything to prevent that from happening.
As a result, the applicant suffered a fracture of the mandible (see paragraphs 12 and 13 below).
(b) Medical treatment provided to the applicant for the injuries suffered in the course of those incidents 10.
The applicant alleged that after both incidents, he was taken to the prison feldsher, who gave him Benalgin (an analgesic, antipyretic and anti‐inflammatory drug commonly used in Bulgaria) but did not find it necessary to have him immediately examined by a medical doctor.
As a result of his injuries, in the following weeks the applicant experienced severe pain in the head and could not sleep or eat properly.
11.
A medical document submitted by the applicant shows that on 26 April 2012 he was examined by an otorhinolaryngologist, who noted that he was experiencing pain in his jaw and prescribed him an analgesic.
12.
On 19 May 2012 the applicant was taken to the facial and jaw surgery clinic of St. Marina Hospital in Varna, where he was examined by a facial and jaw surgeon and given a panoramic radiograph.
The surgeon noted that the applicant had an untreated fracture of the right condyloid process and posttraumatic arthritis of the right temporomandibular joint, and recommended that he undergo physiotherapy of that joint.
13.
On 18 July 2012 the applicant was admitted to Sofia Prison Hospital.
He was examined and given a radiography of the skull.
It was noted that he had a fracture of the mandible that had already healed and could no longer be operated upon, and a nasal septum deviation.
He was treated with chlorprothixene (an antipsychotic drug) and Depakine Chrono (the commercial name of valproate – an anticonvulsant and mood-stabilising drug), and underwent physiotherapy of the temporomandibular joints.
He remained in that hospital until 1 August 2012, when he was taken back to Varna Prison.
14.
The applicant alleged that after that he continued experiencing severe pain in his nose, his right ear and the right side of his head, could only breathe through one nostril, and had trouble hearing with his right ear, but that in spite of his repeated requests he was for a long time not taken for examination by a jaw surgeon or an otorhinolaryngologist.
A medical document submitted by him shows that on 27 December 2012 he was seen by an otorhinolaryngologist in connection with those symptoms.
The otorhinolaryngologist noted that the applicant had problems with his right temporomandibular joint and had trouble masticating, which explained the pain suffered by him.
He prescribed Benalgin and Neurobex.
15.
In the meantime, on an unknown date in May or June 2012 the applicant asked the prosecuting authorities to interrupt the serving of his sentence on medical grounds.
On 7 June 2012 the Varna Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused the request, noting that the physiotherapy recommended to the applicant could be carried out in Sofia Prison Hospital, which had a physiotherapy and rehabilitation unit.
It was not therefore necessary to interrupt the serving of his sentence in order for him to be able to obtain medical treatment out of prison.
On 20 August 2012 the Varna Appellate Prosecutor’s Office upheld that decision.
In a final decision of 25 September 2012 the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office also upheld it, fully agreeing with its reasoning.
(c) Inquiries into the incidents 16.
On an unknown date in 2012 the applicant complained to the Varna District Prosecutor’s Office about the incident of 21 February 2012.
On 21 June 2012 that office refused to open criminal proceedings pursuant to the complaint.
It apparently did not deal with the applicant’s allegations that the prison guard had failed to protect him from Mr K.I.’s assault.
On an appeal by the applicant, on 29 August 2012 the Varna Regional Prosecutor’s Office upheld that decision.
It did comment on the applicant’s allegations in relation to the prison guard, but apparently found no grounds to open criminal proceedings in relation to that.
The applicant appealed further, and in a decision of 10 October 2012 the Varna Appellate Prosecutor’s Office quashed the lower offices’ decisions not to open criminal proceedings in relation to Mr K.I.’s assault, but upheld the decision not to open such proceedings in relation to the prison guard, noting that an internal inquiry had established that the incident between the two inmates had been promptly dealt with and that there had been no culpable omissions by prison staff.
It referred the case back to the Varna Regional Prosecutor’s Office, instructing it to check whether Mr K.I.’s actions constituted causing moderate bodily harm contrary to Article 129 of the Criminal Code and warranted criminal prosecution.
B.
Relevant reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 17.
A delegation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) visited Bulgaria between 18 and 29 October 2010.
The visit included a visit to Varna Prison.
In its ensuing report (CPT/Inf (2012) 9), published on 15 March 2012, the CPT noted the following (footnotes omitted): “88.
At both Plovdiv and Varna Prisons, inter-prisoner violence was rife.
It transpired from the examination of documentation on disciplinary punishments that there was at least one violent altercation between prisoners every week, leading to placements in a disciplinary cell and occasionally to a medical intervention or hospitalisation.
Some instances of inter-prisoner violence/intimidation were also reported at Lovech Prison Hospital.
At Varna Prison in particular, the low staffing level, coupled with severe overcrowding, could easily compromise the safety of staff and prisoners alike.
The climate of violence and intimidation which seemed to prevail at that establishment was often linked to the drug-trafficking that was acknowledged to be widespread, the presence of organised criminal groups and tensions between different ethnic groups and nationalities.
Most of the violent incidents related to fights, but there was also one recorded case of sexual abuse in May 2010.
... ... 89.
In the report on the visit in 2006, the CPT had already recommended that the Bulgarian authorities devise a national strategy concerning inter-prisoner violence.
The findings from the 2010 visit suggest that there is an even greater need for vigorous action to combat this phenomenon.
The Committee considers that an effective strategy to tackle inter-prisoner intimidation/violence should seek to ensure that prison staff are placed in a position to exercise their authority in an appropriate manner.
In particular, staff should be encouraged more closely to supervise the activities of prisoners and enter in direct contact with them with a view to developing dynamic security.
This implies making available sufficient numbers of staff and providing them with appropriate initial and advanced training.
When incidents of inter-prisoner intimidation/violence do occur, staff must be both resolved and properly trained to intervene.
Measures should also be taken to tackle drug-trafficking and tensions between different ethnic groups or nationalities.
In addition to implementing an individualised risk and needs assessment, the prison system may also need to develop the capacity to ensure that potentially incompatible categories of prisoners are not accommodated together.
In some European countries which have been faced with the problem of inter-prisoner violence, good results have been produced by violence prevention programmes and the setting up of special units for prisoners seeking protection from other inmates (vulnerable prisoners, prisoners with psychological/psychiatric problems) as well as special units for dangerous/disruptive prisoners.
The CPT recommends that the Bulgarian authorities carry out a thorough investigation into the nature and scale of the problem of inter-prisoner violence in each prison establishment and develop as a matter of priority a national strategy to address this phenomenon, with a view to ensuring that all prisoners can serve their sentences under safe conditions.” 18.
A delegation of the CPT visited Bulgaria again between 4 and 10 May 2012.
The visit included a visit to Varna Prison.
In its ensuing report (CPT/Inf (2012) 32), published on 4 December 2012, the CPT noted the following (footnotes omitted): “19.
The delegation received many allegations of inter-prisoner violence at both Burgas and Varna Prisons (including verbal and physical intimidation), and even witnessed itself such episodes.
This was hardly surprising considering the combination of severe overcrowding and extremely low staffing levels at both establishments.
Despite long-standing recommendations on this issue, the findings from the 201[0] visit suggest that very little progress has been made to tackle inter-prisoner violence.
The Committee must stress again that the duty of care which is owed by the prison authorities to prisoners in their charge includes the responsibility to protect them from other prisoners who might wish to cause them harm.
In particular, prison staff must be alert to signs of trouble and be both resolved and properly trained to intervene.
Such a capacity to intervene will of course depend, inter alia, on an adequate staff/prisoner ratio and on providing all staff members with appropriate initial and advanced training.
In addition, the prison system as a whole may need to develop the capacity to ensure that potentially incompatible categories of prisoners are not accommodated together.
The CPT calls upon the Bulgarian authorities to develop a national strategy to address the problem of inter-prisoner violence, with a view to ensuring that all prisoners are detained under safe conditions.
... 40.
The provision of health-care was very problematic at both prisons due to an extreme shortage of staff and resources.
The delegation was submerged by complaints about difficulties in having access to prison medical staff, inadequate quality of care (including dental care), problematic access to outside specialists/hospitals (in particular for insurance reasons) and delays in transfer to outside hospitals.
At Varna Prison, the health-care staff consisted of a general practitioner – who had just returned to his duties after a lengthy period of sick leave – and a feldsher, both working full-time.
The doctor from the nearby prison hostel ‘Razdelna’ had been ensuring medical cover when the feldsher was absent.
The psychiatrist’s post had been vacant since January 2011.
A part-time dentist was present for two hours, five days a week.
No qualified nurse was present at the establishment.
To sum up, since January 2011, the establishment’s needs in terms of health-care had been covered essentially by a single feldsher.
The delegation was impressed by her professionalism and commitment, which was also recognised by inmates; nevertheless, the fact that no arrangement was found to compensate the absence of the GP for at least 18 months is unacceptable.
... 43.
No specific screening for injuries was performed upon arrival or after a violent episode in prison, and very limited medical information could be found at Varna Prison ... in this respect.
Further, it appeared that reporting of injuries depended on the prisoner concerned making a specific request, usually to the social worker, on a special form (a copy of the form was not kept in the medical file).
There appeared to be no systematic reporting of traumatic injuries to the Main Directorate for the Execution of Sanctions.
In the light of the above, the CPT reiterates its recommendation that steps be taken to ensure that prison health-care services perform a thorough screening of newly-arrived prisoners for injuries.
In this context, the report completed by the doctor should contain, in addition to a detailed description of injuries observed, any allegations made by the prisoner concerned and the doctor’s conclusions as to the consistency between those allegations and the objective medical findings.
Further, whenever injuries are recorded which are consistent with allegations of ill-treatment made by a prisoner (or which, even in the absence of allegations, are indicative of ill-treatment), the record should be systematically brought to the attention of the relevant prosecutor.
Moreover, the results of every examination, including the above-mentioned statements and the doctor’s conclusions, should be made available to the prisoner and his lawyer.
The same approach should be followed whenever a prisoner is medically examined following a violent episode in prison.” C. Relevant domestic law 1.
The Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 and the regulations for its application 19.
Section 128(1) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 provides that imprisonment should be effected in conditions that protect the physical and mental health of inmates.
20.
Inmates are to be treated in medical centres and specialised hospitals attached to the correctional facilities (sections 129(1) and 130(1)).
These operate under the authority of the Minister of Justice (section 130(2)) but can receive guidance from, and be controlled by, the Minister of Health (section 130(3) of the Act and regulation 4 of Regulations no.
2 of 22 March 2010 on medical care in detention facilities).
There are two such hospitals: one attached to Sofia Prison and one attached to Lovech Prison; they must admit inmates from the entire country (section 132(2) of the Act and regulation 56(1) of Regulations no.
2).
These medical facilities are part of the national healthcare system and the medical care provided by them must match general medical standards (section 129(2) of the Act and regulation 3 of Regulations no.
2).
They may draw in outside medical consultants (section 136(1) of the Act and regulation 8(1) of Regulations no.
2), subject to approval by the prison governor (section 136(2) of the Act and regulation 8(2) of Regulations no.
2).
21.
If an inmate disagrees with a diagnosis made by the prison medical facilities or the treatment prescribed by them, he may request a consultation, at his own expense, with an outside medical doctor (section 137(1) of the Act and regulation 9(1) of Regulations no.
2).
That medical doctor must be given access to the inmate and all medical documents relating to his case (sections 137(1) in fine and (2) of the Act and regulation 9(2) of Regulations no.
2).
His conclusions do not bind the prison authorities and he cannot give binding prescriptions on the place where medical treatment is to be given (section 137(3) of the Act and regulation 9(3) of Regulations no.
2).
22.
Inmates may also be treated in outside hospitals if the prison medical facilities cannot do so or if the inmates have an infectious disease or require special treatment (section 135(1) of the Act and regulation 60(1) of Regulations no.
2).
The decision whether an inmate should be sent to such a hospital belongs to the prison governor, acting on the proposal of the head of the respective prison medical centre or hospital (section 135(2) of the Act, regulation 115(2) of the Regulations for the application of the Act, and regulation 60(2)-(4) of Regulations no.
2).
In urgent cases or cases requiring a specialised examination, the transfer may be carried out on the basis of an oral order (section 135(3)).
23.
An inmate who has asked to be examined by a medical doctor must be seen by one within twenty-four hours (section 143(1)).
To do so, he must have his request entered in a special journal, kept by the guard on duty; the examination must take place within twenty-four hours after the time of the entry (regulation 12(2) of Regulations no.
2).
If the case is urgent or concerns a traumatic injury, the inmate must be seen by a medical doctor immediately, regardless of the time of day (section 143(2) of the Act and regulation 14 of Regulations no.
2).
24.
Each inmate must have a personal medical file; it must be kept in the respective medical facility and accompany the inmate in case of transfer to another correctional facility (regulation 76(1) of Regulations no.
2).
25.
If it is established that an inmate has suffered violent injuries, a record of that must be drawn up and he must be given medical care; the case must also immediately be reported to the supervising prosecutor (section 139(2) of the Act and regulation 10(2) of Regulations no.
2).
2.
The State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 26.
Section 1(1) of State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 provides that the State is liable for damage suffered by individuals or legal persons as a result of unlawful decisions, acts or omissions by civil servants, committed in the course of or in connection with administrative action.
A detailed description of the manner of application of this provision in relation to claims by inmates concerning the conditions of their detention can be found in Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos.
36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 and 9717/13, §§ 125-36, 27 January 2015).
27.
The Bulgarian administrative courts have in recent years dealt with a number of claims for damages under that provision in relation to alleged failures on the part of the prison authorities to provide inmates with adequate medical care.
It appears that all but one of these claims have been dismissed.
28.
The Burgas Administrative Court recently heard and dismissed seven such claims (see реш.
No 2174 от 12.12.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 2729/2013 г., АдмС-Бургас, appeal pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (адм.
д.
No 2588/2015 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.
); реш.
No 2300 от 30.12.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 2685/2013 г., АдмС-Бургас, appeal pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (адм.
д.
No 3701/2015 г. , ВАС, ІІІ о.
); реш.
No 267 от 12.02.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 2505/2013 г., АдмС‐Бургас, not final; реш.
No 553 от 21.03.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 1947/2014 г., АдмС-Бургас, final; реш.
No 745 от 24.04.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 1310/ 2013 г., АдмС-Бургас, appeal pending before the Supreme Administrative Court subject to the payment of the requisite fee; реш.
No 896 от 20.05.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 424/2015 г., АдмС-Бургас, not final; and реш.
No 899 от 20.05.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 1445/2014 г., АдмС‐Бургас, appeal pending before the Supreme Administrative Court subject to the payment of the requisite fees).
29.
The Kyustendil Administrative Court recently heard and dismissed one such claim (see реш.
No 65 от 12.06.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 270/2014 г., АдмС-Кюстендил, appeal pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (адм.
д.
No 8609/2015 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.)).
However, in an earlier case that it decided in June 2013 (see реш.
No 134 от 17.06.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 86/2012 г., АдмС-Кюстендил), it awarded 3,000 Bulgarian levs in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by an inmate as a result of the failure of the prison authorities to take him in a timely manner for examination by a vascular surgeon in relation to a leg trauma, which had caused him chronic deep vein thrombosis; that decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court (see реш.
No 4369 от 31.03.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 11251/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.).
30.
The Pazardzhik Administrative Court recently heard and dismissed one such claim (see реш.
No 474 от 02.08.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 148/2013 г., АдмС-Пазарджик, upheld by реш.
No 14699 от 08.12.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 12505/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.).
31.
The Pleven Administrative Court recently heard and dismissed six such claims (see реш.
No 722 от 20.12.2012 г. по адм.
д.
No 549/2012 г., АдмС-Плевен, appeal withdrawn and appellate case struck out by опр.
No 13208 от 11.10.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 3343/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш.
No 3 от 10.01.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 511/2011 г., АдмС-Плевен, apparently not final; реш.
No 410 от 09.07.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 374/ 2012 г., АдмС‐Плевен, unclear whether final; реш.
No 77 от 18.02.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 990/2013 г., АдмС-Плевен, final; реш.
No 558 от 28.11.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 132/2014 г., АдмС-Плевен, appeal pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (адм.
д.
No 2278/2015 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.
); and реш.
No 170 от 16.04.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 492/2014 г., АдмС-Плевен, not final).
32.
The Plovdiv Administrative Court recently heard and dismissed one such claim (see реш.
No 1873 от 08.08.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 3724/2012 г., АдмС-Пловдив, upheld by реш.
No 8452 от 20.06.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 15459/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.).
33.
The Ruse Administrative Court recently heard and dismissed one such claim (see реш.
No 1 от 08.02.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 64/2012 г., АдмС‐Русе, upheld by реш.
No 490 от 15.01.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 4870/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.).
34.
The Sofia City Administrative Court recently heard and dismissed eight such claims (see реш.
No 1643 от 07.04.2011 г. по адм.
д.
No 1611/2010 г., АдмС-София-град, unclear whether final; реш.
No 3541 от 15.07.2011 г. по адм.
д.
No 3478/2010 г., АдмС-София-град, unclear whether final; реш.
No 7358 от 26.11.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 227/2012 г., АдмС-София-град, upheld by реш.
No 14992 от 11.12.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 3116/2014 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш.
No 4867 от 14.07.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 1273/2013 г., АдмС-София-град, appeal pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (адм.
д.
No 13111/2014 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.
); реш.
No 4145 от 20.06.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 10236/2011 г., АдмС-София-град, annulled by реш.
No 137 от 07.01.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 15898/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о., on remittal discontinued by опр.
No 500 от 29.01.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 208/2015 г., АдмС-София-град, discontinuance upheld by опр.
No 9124 от 29.07.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 5922/2015 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш.
No 5676 от 17.09.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 10899/2012 г., АдмС-София-град, unclear whether final; реш.
No 1372 от 09.03.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 8753/2012 г., АдмС-София-град, not final; and реш.
No 4772 от 06.07.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 10836/2014 г., АдмС-София-град, not final).
35.
The Stara Zagora Administrative Court recently heard and dismissed two such claims (see реш.
No 30 от 25.02.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 304/2013 г., АдмС-Стара Загора, upheld by реш.
No 7514 от 22.06.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 5842/2014 г., ВАС, ІІІ о., and реш.
No 131 от 21.07.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 49/2014 г., АдмС-Стара Загора, upheld by реш.
No 7522 от 22.06.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 12693/2014 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.).
36.
The Varna Administrative Court recently heard and dismissed five such claims (see реш.
No 141 от 28.01.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 2950/2013 г., АдмС-Варна, upheld by реш.
No 2379 от 06.03.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 5361/2014 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш.
No 544 от 10.03.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 492/2013 г., АдмС-Варна, final in relevant part; реш.
No 1137 от 15.05.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 906/2014 г., АдмС-Варна, upheld by реш.
No 6283 от 01.06.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 9166/2014 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш.
No 66 от 19.01.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 1838/2014 г., АдмС-Варна, appeal pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (адм.
д.
No 5088/2015 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.
); and реш.
No 1354 от 15.06.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 1781/2014 г., АдмС-Варна, not final).
37.
The Vratsa Administrative Court recently heard and dismissed four such claims (see реш.
No [...] от 28.06.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 57/2013 г., АдмС-Враца, final; реш.
No 13 от 04.07.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 465/2012 г., АдмС-Враца, upheld by реш.
No 4660 от 04.04.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 11273/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; реш.
No 8 от 04.10.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 216/2013 г., АдмС-Враца, upheld by реш.
No 7631 от 05.06.2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 15458/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.; and реш.
No 23 от 25.10.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 339/2013 г., АдмС-Враца, quashed and remitted by реш.
No 7454 от 19.06.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 4119/2014 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.).
3.
The Code of Administrative Procedure 2006 38.
Articles 256 and 257 of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006 provide that a person may bring proceedings to enjoin an administrative authority to carry out an act that it has the duty to carry out under a legal provision.
If the court allows the claim, it must order the authority to carry out the act within a fixed time-limit.
39.
In a decision of 23 February 2012 (опр.
No 946 от 23.02.2012 г. по адм.
д.
No 2918/2011 г., АдмС-Варна), upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 11 October 2012 (see опр.
No 12574 от 11.10.2012 г. по адм.
д.
No 10946/2012 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.
), the Varna Administrative Court dismissed an inmate’s claim under that provision, made in August 2011, in relation to the alleged failure of the governor of Varna Prison to ensure adequate staffing in the prison’s medical centre.
It held that this was not a duty of the governor and that the claim had not therefore been brought against the correct defendant.
On appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court held that, since the inmate had on several occasions been taken for medical examinations and since the prison’s medical centre was staffed by a medical doctor, a feldsher, a dentist and a psychiatrist, the inmate had no interest in bringing such a claim.
40.
In a judgment of 2 August 2013 (реш.
No 1660 от 02.08.2013 г. по адм.
д.
No 763/2013 г., АдмС-Бургас), upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 20 June 2014 (see реш.
No 8454 от 20 юни 2014 г. по адм.
д.
No 14001/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.
), the Burgas Administrative Court dismissed an inmate’s claim under those provisions, made on 22 March 2013, to be sent for medical treatment in an outside hospital, finding that he could obtain the requisite medical care in Sofia Prison Hospital and that the prison governor had taken steps to arrange for such care.
The Supreme Administrative Court fully agreed with that reasoning.
41.
In a judgment of 16 June 2015 (реш.
No 1363 от 16.06.2015 г. по адм.
д.
No 3242/2014 г., АдмС-Варна), not yet final, the Varna Administrative Court dismissed an inmate’s claim under Article 257, made on 7 October 2014, in relation to the alleged failure of the authorities of Varna Prison to provide him with medicines prescribed to him in July 2014 and with dental treatment the need for which had arisen on 14 September 2014.
The court noted that the medicines had not been given to the inmate for a period in September-November 2014 because the prison’s medical centre had been out of stock.
Therefore, the refusal to provide the medicines could not be regarded as a failure to carry out an act that the prison authorities had had the duty to carry out under a legal provision; Article 257 only allowed the court to enjoin the authorities to carry out an act which did not have to be preceded by preparatory acts or the issuing of internal documents, as was the case with the provision of medicines.
The court went on to say that since the need for dental treatment had arisen on 14 September 2014 and the treatment had been given on 26 November 2014, the inmate no longer had an interest in pursuing the matter.
COMPLAINTS 42.
The applicant complains that the prison authorities did not do enough to prevent Mr K.I.
from assaulting him on 21 February 2012.
43.
The applicant also complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he did not receive timely and adequate medical treatment for the injuries that he sustained in the course of the incidents on 15 and 21 February 2012.