5.  The applicant was born in 1973. He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment without commutation in Lovech Prison. 6.  The applicant has been sentenced eleven times at the end of different sets of criminal proceedings. In 2002 the prosecutor discontinued as time-barred others, in which he had been detained during different periods in 1991, 1992 and 1995. 7.  In August 2007 the applicant brought proceedings seeking compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention during the criminal proceedings against him which had been discontinued as time-barred in 2002 (see paragraph 6 above). His claim was dismissed by two levels of court in 2008. Referring to section 8 of interpretative decision No. 3 of 22 April 2004 of the Supreme Court of Cassation (see paragraph 43 below), the second-instance court held that State responsibility for damage could not be engaged as measures and steps taken before the expiration of the statute of limitations cannot be considered unlawful within the meaning of the SMRDA. 8.  On 13 October 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and murder and convicted to serve a cumulated punishment of life imprisonment without commutation on 26 October 2000. 9.  The applicant was detained and served this punishment in the Lovech and Varna Prisons. He was in Lovech Prison between 17 January 2000 and 14 June 2002, between 12 August 2005 and 20 December 2006, and again as of 19 February 2009, where he continued to be at the time of the last information which the Court received from the Government in May 2011. He was detained in Varna Prison between 14 June 2002 and 12 August 2005, and again between 20 December 2006 and 19 February 2009. 10.  In both prisons and throughout this period the applicant was placed under the “special regime” and was kept in permanently locked cells with heightened security. 11.  The applicant submitted that occasionally he had had to share his cell in Varna Prison with other inmates. According to the Government he was mostly kept alone in his cell in Lovech Prison; they did not provide information in respect of his cell in Varna Prison. 12.  According to the applicant the cells were not equipped with toilet facilities or taps and wash basins. He was allowed to use the common toilet and to wash his hands three times a day before meals. He had had to use a plastic bucket to relieve himself in his cell at all other times. Apart from the daily hourly walk in the open air, these had been the only times he had been allowed out of his cell. 13.  The Government did not dispute that in respect of the period before the autumn of 2008, when works had been carried out in the special security wing in Lovech Prison and toilets and sinks had been installed in each of the cells of the prisoners serving sentences of life imprisonment. Likewise, the windows had been changed. The Government did not provide details in relation to sanitary facilities in Varna Prison. Referring to section 71(2) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 according to which persons placed under the special regime had to be kept in constantly locked cells and under heightened supervision, they explained that the “special regime” conditions did not allow unrestricted access to the toilet facilities.
(b)  General hygiene 14.  The applicant complained that he was allowed to shower only once a fortnight in Varna Prison. He further claimed that hygiene in the common areas was poor, with rats in the kitchen and the toilet. 15.  The Government did not comment on conditions in Varna Prison but replied that the cells in Lovech Prison had been cleaned regularly. During the period between 31 May 2004 and 7 June 2004 three checks had been carried out in Lovech Prison by the deputy prison director and medical staff who reported a satisfactory situation. The Government further stressed that the applicant had been provided with 0,2 kg of soap for personal hygiene and 0,25 kg of soap for washing his clothes every month. 16.  The applicant submitted that the food served in the prisons was of poor quality and that the cells were too cold in winter, too hot in summer, damp and lacking in ventilation. 17.  The Government responded that the food was certified for its good quality and was prepared and supervised by a qualified cook. The weekly menu was put together by the prison cook and approved by the prison director, by medical personnel and by a prison administrator. Life prisoners received their food in their cells. When the applicant had refused to eat pork because of his religious convictions, he had been given grilled veal sausages with different side dishes. He had been provided with about 2620 calories a day. 18.  The applicant further claimed that medical services were insufficient. In this regard the Government replied that prisoners serving life sentences were subject to periodical medical checks, which took place in their cells for security reasons. If they needed to be examined by outside medical personnel, they were taken to the prison medical centre. The inmates received any medication they needed from the prison’s pharmacy and could purchase different medicines from external pharmacies once a prescription had been issued. All cases requiring urgent intervention were treated without delay. 19.  The applicant claimed that he had been offered no opportunity for social contact or other occupational activities while serving his sentence of life imprisonment. 20.  Without specifying any particular period of time, frequency or duration, the Government submitted that the applicant had been given the opportunity to take part in cultural and intellectual activities in Lovech Prison. He could order and receive books from the prison library which were taken to his cell. He could read a daily national and two local newspapers. The Government also submitted that the applicant could play chess and participate in essay competitions organised in the prison, to the extent to which the regime of inmates serving life-imprisonment sentences permitted. 21.  On 27 October 2005 the applicant brought proceedings under the SMRDA seeking BGN 25,000 in compensation for the distress and humiliation suffered during the period between 26 October 2000 and 26 October 2005 as a result of the poor conditions of detention in the prisons in Lovech and Varna, as well as of the periods of disciplinary sanctions enforced in cells lacking beds, linen, tables and chairs for a total of 40 days in the same period. 22.  In their decision of 8 May 2006 the court found that the applicant, like the other inmates serving life sentences under the “special regime”, had had to use a bucket in the cell for toilet needs. Life prisoners had only been let out of their cells three times a day when they were allowed to use the communal toilets and wash the buckets; during the rest of the time they had to relieve themselves in the cells in front of other inmates. The court concluded that the humiliation of having to use a bucket for one’s physiological needs could only be justified with security reasons. As the Government had failed to produce evidence that there had been a real and serious risk to security in the applicant’s case, the restrictions applied to his access to a toilet had been excessive and beyond the ones inherent to deprivation of liberty. The court awarded the applicant BGN 200 (approximately EUR 100) in damages suffered as a result of detention in inhuman and degrading material conditions – absence of toilet facilities, bed, linen, table and chair, access of light and fresh air caused by inaction of the respondent party in the period 26 October 2000 – 26 October 2005. The applicant was required to pay court fees at the amount of BGN 992 for the remaining part of his claim. 23.  Upon an appeal by both parties, on 28 December 2006 the Veliko Turnovo Appellate Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the claim. The court found in particular that the applicant’s “special regime” required heightened security arrangements and constantly locked cells, which made it impossible to allow access to the communal toilet at night. However, he had access to the toilet during the day-time slots allowed for that and it had not been established that the prison guards had prevented him from visiting the toilet then. While serving such a punishment was no doubt characterized by negative and unfavourable effects, the circumstances of the case did not attract the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and the prison authorities under the SMRDA since the enforcement of a punishment could not be considered as exercising administrative activities or as unlawful action or inaction within the meaning of Article 1 of this law. According to the appellate court the responsibility of the State for the alleged suffering could be engaged before other unspecified bodies and proceedings. 24.  In a final decision no. 666/08 of 26 May 2008 issued in case no. 1685/2008, the Supreme Court of Cassation accepted that the Ministry of Justice and the prison authorities were the state bodies responsible for the execution of sentences and were therefore liable under the SMRDA for any damage caused in connection with it. It was notorious that the conditions in the Bulgarian prisons were not up to European standards, but these conditions were the same for all inmates. The execution of sentences was in itself accompanied by considerable restrictions associated with deprivation of liberty and the various regimes, especially by the “special regime” as compared to the others, and even more in placement in isolation cells as a disciplinary sanction for offences. In examining such complaints the courts had to take into account and strike the necessary balance between the prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment as set by the Constitution and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention, and the inevitable suffering inherent to deprivation of liberty. The court acknowledged the degrading effect of using buckets in the presence of other prisoners, but also took into account the necessity to ensure security and discipline in accordance with the requirements of the “special regime” served in this department of the prison as well as the personalities and specific conduct of prisoners. In striking this balance in the particular case, the Supreme Court of Cassation found that the applicant’s suffering did not go beyond the level of due respect to his dignity and did not require any compensation. 25.  On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant brought another set of proceedings under the SMRDA seeking BGN 11,000 in compensation for damages suffered as a result of the application of the “special regime”, which excluded him from labour, educational, cultural and sport activities, during the periods 17 January 2000 – 14 June 2002 and 12 August 2005 – 20 December 2006, when he was in Lovech Prison; as well as 14 June 2002 – 12 August 2005 and after 20 December 2006, when he was in Varna Prison and with the exception of the time between 14 July 2002 and 12 August 2005 when he had been allowed to see a psychologist and take part in educational activities once a week, as well as to play table-tennis for 45 minutes on Fridays. 26.  In a final judgment of 23 February 2009 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the appellate court’s findings rejecting the applicant’s claim. In particular it observed that the lower (Veliko Turnovo Appellate) court:
“...established an absence of unlawful conduct by representatives of the prison administration leading to the applicant suffering damage. The applicant is serving his sentence under the ‘special regime’ in accordance with section 127b of the Execution of Punishments Act 1969 [the 1969 Act]. Under section 127d in conjunction with section 127a of the 1969 Act the sentence of life imprisonment without commutation is implemented either in separate prisons or in special sections of the regular prisons. According to section 167g of the regulations for the implementation of the 1969 Act life prisoners are placed in permanently locked cells under heightened security. Only after a decision of the commission under section 17 of the 1969 Act can those prisoners be accommodated in cells together with prisoners serving different sentences and can they take part in joint sport, work, educational or other activities. The lower court concluded on the basis of the legislation referred to above that the administration of Lovech and Varna Prisons cannot be said to have failed to act thus causing the applicant non-pecuniary damage. Admittedly, during the period in question the applicant did not take part in labour, educational or sport activities. However, that is explained with the type of regime under which he is serving his sentence and not with any unlawful conduct by the prison administration. The applicant has been involved in individual correctional activities; he had been allowed to spend an hour a day in the open air in a place furnished with sports equipment. As of February 2007, he has been allowed an additional hour for sport. Moreover, it has not been established that he has suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the absence of labour, sport or cultural activities.” 27.  The Supreme Court of Cassation concluded that:
“...the lower court rightly held that no unlawful failure to act by the prison administration had been established, contrary to the applicant’s allegations. In order to engage the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice under section 1 of the SMRDA for the prison administration’s alleged failure to act, it is necessary to establish that the lack of action was unlawful, in other words, that there existed an obligation to act and the administration failed to do so. The prison regime is stipulated in the 1969 Act. According to sections 43 and 127a of the 1969 Act, as well as to section 167g of the regulations for its implementation, inmates placed under the “special regime” are mandatorily kept apart from the rest of the prison population. The evidence in the file does not show that the prison administration has acted in breach of the legislative framework regulating the enforcement of the punishment given to the applicant. Mr Hasan refers to Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to other relevant international instruments. However, the evidence gathered in his case does not show that he has been subjected to humiliation. The conditions under which he has been kept in prison are in conformity with the statutory requirements regulating the functioning of the places for deprivation of liberty.” 28.  The applicant submitted that while he was in Varna Prison the entirety of his incoming and outgoing correspondence with his lawyer was subject to inspection in accordance with section 33(1)(c) of the 1969 Act. 29.  He also claimed that the prison administration failed to deliver some of the letters to his mother because they were written in Turkish. He further stated that he could make telephone calls only to members of his family and not to his lawyer. Furthermore, he submitted that the visits by relatives and lawyers to him were held in special premises with a prison officer attending the meeting. 30.  The applicant, a Muslim of Turkish origin, claimed to have frequently been insulted on the basis of his ethnic origin and religious beliefs by the Varna prison authorities and in particular by J.V., one of the prison officers. In particular, the applicant claimed that the authorities had addressed him as “dirty Turk”, “gypsy” and other ethnically-based insults. He submitted declarations made by other prisoners in support of his statements concerning the discriminatory comments. 31.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the district prosecutor of abuse of office by J.V. in relation to a search of the inmates’ cells. He also stated that J.V. had made discriminatory comments against him. By a final order of 23 February 2005 a prosecutor from the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office refused to open criminal proceedings against J.V. for abuse of office. As regards the alleged discriminatory insults, the prosecutor stated that they were not subject to public prosecution and that therefore the applicant should have brought a private criminal complaint before the courts. 32.  Between 2006 and 2008 the applicant complained successfully under the Protection Against Discrimination Act on three occasions, alleging other type of discriminatory treatment in prison. In particular the courts found that he had been discriminated against by not having been given meals free from pork as required by his religious convictions; by having been made to put stamps on his letters to State institutions, when that had not been required from prisoners not serving life sentences; and, by having been shaved and had his hair trimmed in his cell, while prisoners with lighter sentences had access to the barber’s premises in the prison. The courts ordered the relevant authorities to discontinue the above discriminatory practices and, in the context of his claim about a failure to respect his religious convictions, to provide to him pork-free food.