Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Nikolova v. Bulgaria

Nikolova v. Bulgaria 58 10 hrcd [ 1999 ] NIKOLOVA v. BULGARIA Right to liberty – violation Article 5, Sections 3 and 4 Investigators and prosecutors under Bulgarian law and practice did not meet the criteria of independence and objective impartiality established in the Court’s case-law and therefore they could not be considered officers exercising judicial power within the meaning of Article 5, Section 3, for the purposes of ordering pre-trial detention and determining bail. Review of such decisions by court when examining the applicant’s appeal against her detention which only verified whether the applicant had been charged with a “serious wilful crime” within the meaning of the Penal Code and whether her medical condition required release, thus without having examined concrete facts concerning the soundness of the charges against the applicant and the issue whether there existed a danger of absconding, was contrary to the requirement of Article 5, Section 4 that the judicial review of detention should encompass all the conditions essential for its lawfulness, in the Convention sense. Further, the review proceedings did not ensure equality of arms as they were held in camera , because the prosecutor submitted comments which were not communicated to the applicant, and http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Rights Case Digest Brill

Nikolova v. Bulgaria

Human Rights Case Digest , Volume 10 (1-3): 58 – Jan 1, 1999
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/nikolova-v-bulgaria-KsI603kvGS

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1999 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0965-934X
eISSN
1571-8131
DOI
10.1163/15718139920616920
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

58 10 hrcd [ 1999 ] NIKOLOVA v. BULGARIA Right to liberty – violation Article 5, Sections 3 and 4 Investigators and prosecutors under Bulgarian law and practice did not meet the criteria of independence and objective impartiality established in the Court’s case-law and therefore they could not be considered officers exercising judicial power within the meaning of Article 5, Section 3, for the purposes of ordering pre-trial detention and determining bail. Review of such decisions by court when examining the applicant’s appeal against her detention which only verified whether the applicant had been charged with a “serious wilful crime” within the meaning of the Penal Code and whether her medical condition required release, thus without having examined concrete facts concerning the soundness of the charges against the applicant and the issue whether there existed a danger of absconding, was contrary to the requirement of Article 5, Section 4 that the judicial review of detention should encompass all the conditions essential for its lawfulness, in the Convention sense. Further, the review proceedings did not ensure equality of arms as they were held in camera , because the prosecutor submitted comments which were not communicated to the applicant, and

Journal

Human Rights Case Digest – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.