CASE OF KOLEVI v. BULGARIA

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF KOLEVI v. BULGARIA

(Application no. 1108/02)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 November 2009

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kolevi v. Bulgaria,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,

Renate Jaeger,

Karel Jungwiert,

Rait Maruste,

Mark Villiger,

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,

Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,

and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 October 2009,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 1108/02) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court on 17 December 2001 under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by Mr Nikolai Georgiev Kolev, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1949. Mr Kolev was shot dead on 28 December 2002. His wife, Mrs Nanka Koleva, his daughter, Ms Christina Koleva, and his son, Mr Georgi Kolev, stated that they wished to pursue the application. They also submitted additional complaints.

2. The applicants were represented by Mr Y. Grozev and Mr B. Boev, lawyers practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Karadjova, of the Ministry of Justice.

3. The applicants alleged, in particular, that Mr Kolev's detention in 2001 had been unlawful and unjustified, that his appeals against his detention had not been examined speedily and that the investigation into the first applicant's murder had not been independent and effective.

4. By a decision of 4 December 2007, the Court declared the application partly admissible and partly inadmissible.

5. The applicants, but not the Government, filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine), the parties replied in writing to each other's observations and submitted additional information requested by the Chamber.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

6. Mr Kolev was a high-ranking prosecutor. Between 1994 and 1997 he was Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor of Bulgaria and, thereafter, a prosecutor at the Supreme Cassation Prosecution Office and later at the Supreme Administrative Prosecution Office.

7. His wife, Mrs Nanka Koleva, the second applicant, is a high-ranking prosecutor.

A. The facts submitted by Mr Kolev in his application of 17 December 2001 and letter of 22 October 2002

1. Mr Kolev's dismissal

8. On 10 January 2001 Mr Kolev was dismissed from his position by decision of the Supreme Judicial Council, on an application by the Chief Public Prosecutor, Mr F. The decision ordered Mr Kolev's retirement.

9. During the months preceding Mr Kolev's dismissal, several other high-ranking prosecutors were dismissed and ordered to take early retirement.

10. Mr Kolev lodged an appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court against his dismissal, stating, inter alia, that he had never applied for retirement and that he had not reached retirement age. By a judgment of 23 May 2001 a chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the dismissal as contrary to the law, noting that Mr Kolev had not reached retirement age and that even though he was eligible for early retirement this could only be ordered if requested by the person concerned.

11. On appeal, that judgment was upheld on 10 December 2001 by a five-member chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court.

12. On an unspecified date in 2002 Mr Kolev resumed his office as a prosecutor. He started work at the Supreme Administrative Prosecution Office.

2. Mr Kolev's and others' accusations against the Chief Public Prosecutor

13. Between 1999 and 2006 Mr F. was the Chief Public Prosecutor of Bulgaria.

14. According to Mr Kolev, the real reason for attempting to force him to retire was a conflict between him and the Chief Public Prosecutor. Mr Kolev allegedly knew the Chief Public Prosecutor very well as they had been in the same class as university students and had worked together for an unspecified period. Observing the behaviour of the Chief Public Prosecutor, Mr Kolev gradually formed the opinion that he was suffering from a psychiatric disorder. Also, a conflict between the two allegedly erupted in relation to plans - which Mr Kolev resisted - to allow public access to the archives of the military intelligence service dating from the communist period. According to Mr Kolev's statements, supported by several other public figures, the conflict also arose from the fact that the Chief Public Prosecutor had developed an authoritarian style and had repeatedly ordered other prosecutors to act unl...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here