From 21 to 23 October, representatives of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights continued their visit to Sofia.
The delegation held eight productive meetings with representatives of various Bulgarian institutions to discuss measures for the execution of judgments in more than 30 leading cases. Meetings were held with the Deputy Minister of Justice, Iva Kecheva, the President of the Parliamentary Committee on the Oversight of the Security Services, Hristo Terziyski, judges from the Supreme Administrative Court, the Sofia Court of Appeal, the Sofia City Administrative Court and the Sofia District Court, prosecutors from the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, the President of the National Bureau for the Control of Special Intelligence Means, representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Education, the State Agency for National Security, representatives of the Ombudsperson’s Office, representatives of the Private Bailiffs’ Chamber, the Central Commission for Combating Anti-Social Behaviour by Minors and Juveniles and senior legal advisers of the Constitutional Court.
The discussions focused on the progress achieved, outstanding questions and possible further measures for the execution of cases or group of cases under enhanced or standard supervision. They concerned, inter alia, the following groups or cases under enhanced supervision: Dimitrov and Others (ill-treatment by the police or lack of effective investigation), Ekimdzhiev and Others (lack of sufficient safeguards against the risk of abuse in use of secret surveillance or gathering and access to traffic data), Miroslava Todorova (the disciplinary sanction of a judge in 2011-2015 in retaliation for her criticism of the then Supreme Judicial Council and the executive power), I.G.D. (right to liberty and to respect for private and family life of children placed in institutions for educational purposes), Y. and Others and A.E. (ineffective protection or investigations concerning domestic violence), C.G. and Others (regarding specifically the question of publicity of judgments in classified cases).
Standard supervision cases discussed included, inter alia: Aneva and Others (failure to enforce judicial decisions concerning custody or contact rights), Ekoglasnost (violation of electoral rights as a result of late amendment of the conditions for participation in elections), Riza and Others (violation of electoral rights in relation to partial annulment of election results), Shesti Mai Engineering OOD (lack of sufficient safeguards in relation to fraudulent interference with the applicants’ shareholding rights), Miryana Petrova (lack of judicial review of the substantive grounds underlying a dismissal based on the withdrawal of a security clearance), Stanev (questions related to judicial review of placement in social care home of persons suffering from mental disorders), cases concerning access to court in relation to court fees or costs (Agromodel, Boychev, Mandev and Others), remedies in relation to situations of non-enforcement of domestic judgments (Stoyanov and Tabakov and Chorbov).
