issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 070 (2019)

21.02.2019

Judgments and decisions of 21 February 2019

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 13 judgments¹and 62 decisions²:

two Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one

other Chamber judgment in the case of Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan (application

no. 35432/07);

a separate press release has also been issued for one decision, in the case of Ahunbay and Others

v. Turkey (no. 6080/06);

ten Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and

the 61 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Lolov and Others v. Bulgaria (application no. 6123/11)*

The applicants, Svetlozar Lolov, Rumyana Lolova, a married couple, Stamen Lolov, their son, and

Rangel Stanchev, who is not a relative, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1964, 1963, 1984

and 1975 respectively. Mr and Ms Lolovi currently live in the United States, and the other two

applicants live in Burgas, Bulgaria.

The case concerned a charge of tax evasion which had allegedly been organised by the applicants,

the first two of whom were business people working in the tourism and real estate sectors.

In April 2009 the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation against several

people for large-scale tax evasion. On 25 June 2010 a judge authorised a search of Mr and

Ms Lolovi’s home in Sozopol. An investigator charged them, in absentia, with criminal conspiracy to

organise tax evasion and with several counts of extortion from workers who they had employed on

their company’s worksites. On the same date Mr Stanchev was charged with participating in Mr and

Ms Lolovi’s criminal activities and in several cases of extortion. In June and July 2010 a series of

articles were published in the press and on the Internet concerning the police operation in question.

On 13 August 2013, following the withdrawal of all the prosecutors in the Burgas Regional

Prosecutor’s Office, the criminal proceedings were assigned to the Yambol Regional Prosecutor’s

Office. Subsequently, on 24 October 2014 and 19 August 2016, all the criminal proceedings were

terminated on the basis that no criminal offence had been committed.

Meanwhile, on 26 June 2010, Mr Stanchev had been arrested by the police and was held in custody

for 24 hours. Suffering from diabetes, he was taken into hospital on account of the worrying state of

his health. The next day a prosecutor from the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office ordered his

detention until 29 June 2010. On that day he was taken from the hospital to appear at the regional

court. After the hearing the court decided that in view of the applicant’s state of health and the need

to prevent him from absconding and committing further offences, he should be placed under house

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber

judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a

panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and

deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the

Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.

Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.

arrest. In August 2011 the regional court replaced the house arrest with bail. That order was lifted

on 3 July 2012 on the expiry of the legal time-limit.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on

Human Rights, Mr and Ms Lolovi and Mr Stanchev complained of a violation of the right to the

presumption of innocence on account of the publication of a communiqué from the Ministry of the

Interior on 29 June 2010. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European

Convention, they also complained of the lack of effective domestic remedies that could have

provided redress for the alleged violations of their rights.

Violation of Article 6 § 2 – in respect of Mr and Ms Lolovi and Mr Stanchev

Violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 6 § 2 – in respect of Mr and Ms Lolovi and

Mr Stanchev

Mr Stamen Lolov’s complaints were declared inadmissible.

Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) each to Mr Svetlozar Lolov, Ms Lolova and Mr Stanchev for non-

pecuniary damage, and EUR 3,192.95 to the applicants jointly, for costs and expenses, of which EUR

2,000 to be paid to Mr Svetlozar Lolov and EUR 1,000 to Mr Stanchev

Gablishvili and Others v. Georgia (no. 7088/11)

The applicants, Giorgi Gablishvili, Romik Kasyanovi, Zurab Gachechiladze, and Giorgi Mtchedlidze,

are Georgian nationals who were born in 1988, 1982, 1984, and 1987 respectively. At the relevant

time they were serving their sentences in Rustavi Prison no. 1 (Georgia).

The case concerned the alleged ill-treatment of prisoners and the national authorities’ failure to

conduct an effective investigation in that regard.

On 30 March 2009 the applicants were arrested in a yard behind the prison during an alleged

attempt to flee. According to their submissions, they had left the confinement area through an open

door, climbed over a high wall and had jumped down into the back yard. There they were attacked

by prison officers who severely beat them with wooden sticks and iron pipes. After the arrest the

applicants were placed in a punishment cell, where their beating continued.

On the same day the Ministry of Prisons opened a criminal investigation into the circumstances of

the attempted escape. The investigator questioned the applicants, who blamed all of their injuries

on a fall from a prison wall. The investigator further commissioned an expert from the National

Forensic Bureau who concluded that the applicants’ injuries could have been caused by blows with

hard, blunt objects inflicted at the time of the attempted escape.

In court proceedings the applicants withdrew their initial statements and testified that they had

been ill-treated during their arrest. In December 2009 the Rustavi City Court convicted them of

attempting to escape from prison. The second and third applicants were also found guilty of resisting

prison officers in the exercise of their duties. All their appeals were rejected.

The applicants complained to the Chief Prosecutor of ill-treatment and requested the initiation of

criminal proceedings. The Ministry of Prisons interviewed the prison governor and four prison

officers who had been involved in the incident and all of them denied that the applicants had been

beaten.

On 20 August 2012 the prosecutor in charge of the case decided to discontinue the proceedings for

lack of evidence of a crime. He fully accepted the prison officers’ version of the events, concluding

that the applicants could have been injured when they had jumped down from the wall. The

applicants were not informed about the decision and only found out about it in 2014.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained that

they had been ill-treated by prison officers during their arrest after their attempt to escape from

prison and immediately thereafter. They further alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct a

thorough, adequate, and independent investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment.

Violation of Article 3 (treatment) – in respect of Mr Gablishvili and Mr Mtchedlidze

No violation of Article 3 (treatment) – in respect of Mr Kasyanovi and Mr Gachechiladze

Violation of Article 3 (investigation) - in respect of all four applicants

Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 each to Mr Gablishvili and Mr Mtchedlidze and EUR 3,000 each to

Mr Kasyanovi and Mr Gachechiladze for non-pecuniary damage

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,

judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive

the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter

@ECHR_Press.

Press contacts

echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)

Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)

Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member

States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.