CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 12 May 2014   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56668/12 Alisiya Yurieva KORPACHYOVA-HOFBAUER against Bulgaria lodged on 14 August 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Alisia Yurieva Korpachyova-Hofbauer, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Sofia. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. By a court decision of 22 February 2012 the applicant, who suffered from a schizoaffective disorder, was placed for two-month compulsory treatment in the Sveti Ivan Rilski State Psychiatric Hospital (“the Hospital”) in the town of Novi Iskar. She was released on 22 April 2012, after the expiry of the period fixed in the court decision. The applicant submits that the living conditions in the Hospital were poor and that during the months she spent there it was very cold. The applicant refers in addition to a report of the national Ombudsman, prepared after a visit to the Hospital in June 2012. The report describes the Hospital’s buildings as old and in a “deplorable” state of repair and it is noted that each year they are flooded by the Iskar river. In addition, it is noted that the Hospital is situated away from the town of Novi Iskar, which renders the access to it for the patients’ relatives difficult, especially in winter. The report notes further that the patients are accommodated in rooms with 3 or 4 beds. Each ward, housing about 35 patients, has 2 bathrooms and 2 toilets. Visits are allowed twice a week, and take place in the yard, if the weather so permits. The patients are allowed out of their rooms for up to one and a half hours a day, provided that there is an authorisation by a doctor. In the rooms used for serving the food the delegation established leeks, mould and rusty utensils. The report’s conclusion was that the living conditions in the Hospital were unfit for the treatment of mentally-ill patients and in disparity with the State’s declared policies in the area of mental health. The report recommended the Hospital’s gradual closure. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act provides in section 1(1) that the State and the municipalities are liable for damage caused to private individuals and legal entities as a result of unlawful decisions, acts or omissions of their authorities or officials while discharging their administrative duties. It is well-established practice of the domestic courts to examine under that provision tort claims concerning allegedly poor conditions of detention in prisons, finding that the management of prisons represents a “discharge of administrative duties” within that provision’s meaning. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the living conditions in the Hospital where she was detained from 22 February to 22   April 2012.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted the available domestic remedies for her complaint in respect of the conditions of detention in the Hospital? In   particular, has she brought a tort action against the State on account of the allegedly poor living conditions? Could such an action represent an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the allegedly poor living conditions in the Hospital where the applicant was detained between 22 February and 22 April 2012?