Podnosilac predstavke je 2005. tokom boravka u pritvoru podneo zahtev za upis u zatvorsku školu. Njegov su zahtev prvo odbile zatvorske vlasti a na kraju i Vrhovni upravni sud. Upravnik zatvora je smatrao da će ukoliko ponovo bude osuđen, podnosilac predstavke, koji je ranije već osuđivan, biti povratnik i da stoga treba da bude odvojen od drugih zatvorenika koji su prvi put osuđeni. Vrhovni upravni sud je odbio njegov zahtev po drugom osnovu, zaključivši da samo osuđenici koji služe kaznu zatvora, ali ne i pritvorenici, imaju pravo na obrazovanje.

Pravo – član 2 Protokola br. 1: Sud je podsetio da zatvorenici koji su zakonito lišeni slobode nastavljaju da uživaju sva osnovna prava i slobode zajemčene Konvencijom osim prava na slobodu te da je podnosilac predstavke i dalje imao pravo na obrazovanje iz člana 2 Protokola br. 1. Pravo na obrazovanje nameće Bugarskoj obavezu da obezbedi delotvoran pristup postojećim obrazovnim ustanovama, uključujući i zatvorskom školama. Stoga je Država bila dužna da dokaže da je njeno isključenje podnosioca predstavke bilo predvidljivo, da je težilo ostvarenju legitimnog cilja i da je bilo srazmerno tom cilju. Sud je utvrdio da nije nesumnjivo da je isključenje bilo u dovoljnoj meri predvidljivo, jer je relevantni zakonski okvir propisivao da osuđenici imaju pravo da budu obuhvaćeni obrazovnim programima i da se odredbe koje se odnose na osuđenike shodno primenjuju i na pritvorenike. Nejasnoća zakonskog okvira se odražavala u činjenici da su nacionalni organi davali različita obrazloženja za njegovo izuzimanje: upravnik zatvora i Ministarstvo pravde su naglašavali potencijalni recidivizam podnosioca predstavke, dok se Vrhovni upravni sud bio usredsredio na to što je podnosilac predstavke imao status pritvorenika.

Država se pozvala na tri različita osnova kako bi opravdala isključenje podnosioca predstavke iz škole. Sud je u pogledu njenog prvog argumenta da nije prikladno da podnosilac predstavke pohađa školu sa osuđenim zatvorenicima napomenuo da podnosilac predstavke nije imao nikakve primedbe u tom pogledu i da ne postoje dokazi da bi pritvorenici imali štete od pohađanja škole sa osuđenicima. Štaviše, Sud nije smatrao da neizvesnost u pogledu dužine pritvora predstavlja valjano opravdanje za isključenje iz obrazovne ustanove. Konačno, Sud je u pogledu trećeg argumenta Države, da postoji opasnost da će podnosilac predstavke ponovo biti osuđen i da ne bi bilo u interesu zatvorenika koji su prvi put osuđeni da sa njim pohađaju školu, podsetio da je podnosilac predstavke imao pravo na pretpostavku nevinosti i da stoga nije mogao biti okvalifikovan kao povratnik. U svetlu tih razmatranja i prepoznavši nesumnjiv interes podnosioca predstavke da završi srednju školu, Sud je utvrdio da odbijanje njegovog upisa u zatvorsku školu nije bilo u dovoljnoj meri predvidljivo, da nije težilo ostvarenju legitimnog cilja i da nije bilo srazmerno tom cilju.
Zaključak: povreda (jednoglasno).

EVROPSKI SUD ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA

ČETVRTO ODJELJENJE

PREDMET VELYO VELEV protiv BUGARSKE

Predstavka br. 16032/07)

PRESUDA

(Izvodi)

STRAZBUR

27. maj 2014. godine

Ova presuda postaće pravosnažna u okolnostima iznesenim u članu 44 stav 2 Konvencije. Ona može biti predmet redaktorskih izmjena.

U predmetu Velyo Velev protiv Bugarske

Evropski sud za ljudska prava (Četvrto odjeljenje) zasijedajući u Vijeću u sastavu:

Ineta Ziemele, Predsjednik,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Paul Mahoney,
Faris Vehabović, sudije,
i Françoise Elens-Passos, Sekretar odjeljenja,

Nakon vijećanja na zatvorenoj sjednici dana 6. maja 2014. godine izriče sljedeću presudu koja je usvojena toga dana:

POSTUPAK

Predmet je formiran na osnovu predstavke (br. 16032/07) protiv Republike Bugarske koju je 5. marta 2007. godine Sudu po članu 34 Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda (u daljem tekstu: Konvencija) podnio državljanin Bugarske, g. Velyo Nikolaev Velev (u daljem tekstu: podnosilac predstavke).
Podnosioca predstavke zastupala je g-đa E. Syarova, advokat sa praksom u Staroj Zagori. Bugarsku vladu (u daljem tekstu: Vlada) zastupala je njena Zastupnica, g-đa M. Kotseva iz Ministarstva pravde.
Podnosilac predstavke žalio se da mu nije dozvoljeno da nastavi obrazovanje dok je boravio u zatvoru Stara Zagora, čime je povrijeđeno njegovo pravo iz člana 2 protokola br. 1, te da se prema njemu postupalo kao prema "povratniku" prije pravosnažne osuđujuće presude u njegovom predmetu, čime je povrijeđeno njegovo pravo po članu 6 stav 2 Konvencije.
Dana 14. decembra 2010. godine Vlada je obaviještena o predstavci.

ČINJENICE

I. OKOLNOSTI PREDMETA

Podnosilac predstavke rođen je 1977. godine u Staroj Zagori gdje i živi. 2003. godine on je osuđen za krivično djelo prevare i služio je kaznu u zatvoru Stara Zagora od 11. februara 2003. godine do 9. avgusta 2004. godine. Dana 1. oktobra 2004. godine uhapšen je pod sumnjom da je nezakonito posjedovao vatreno oružje. Između 29. novembra 2004. godine i 20. aprila 2007. godine bio je u pritvoru u zatvoru Stara Zagora, gdje je, kako je tvrdio, bio pritvoren sa zatvorenicima koji su bili "povratnici" (v. stav 20 ove presude).
Pošto nije bio završio srednju školu, podnosilac predstavke tražio je da bude upisan u školu koja je radila u zatvoru Stara Zagora. U avgustu 2005. godine on je predao pisani zahtjev upravniku zatvora Stara Zagora, tražeći da bude upisan u školu škoske godine 2005/06. Nije dobio odgovor prije 15. septembra 2005. godine kada je počela školska godina, pa je ponovo pisao Upravniku 29. septembra 2005. godine, a i Ministarstvu prosvjete i Tužilaštvu (u Bugarskoj je tužilac nadležan da nadzire zakonitost izvršenja pritvora u periodu prije završetka suđenja i zatvorske kazne nakon izricanja osuđujuće presude). Podnosilac predstavke dobio je pismo od tužioca od 6. oktobra 2005. godine u kome se navodi da je zatvorska služba na propisan način uzela u obzir mogućnost da podnosilac predstavke nastavi školovanje, a u svjetlu njegove ranije kazne. Tužilac je dalje naveo da tvrdnja podnosioca predstavke u vezi sa tim da mu je odbijen pristup obrazovanju nije potvrđena. Podnosilac predstavke dobio je odgovor Ministarstva prosvjete datiran 24. oktobra 2005. godine. U tom dopisu se navodi da fizička lica lišena slobode (лишени от свобода) imaju pravo da nastave obrazovanje u zatvoru i nisu se posebno pominjala lica u pritvoru.
U međuvremenu, dana 19. oktobra 2005. godine podnosilac predstavke poslao je drugi zahtjev Upravniku zatvora, Ministarstvu prosvjete i tužiocu na žalbenom nivou. Dana 26. oktobra 2005. godine podnosilac predstavke podnio je zahtjev Upravniku zatvora tražeći ponovo da bude upisan u zatvorsku školu u školskoj godini 2005/06. Pozivajući se na dopis od 24. oktobra podnosilac predstavke tvrdio je da je Ministarstvo prosvjete priznalo njegovo pravo na pristup obrazovanju u zatvoru. Dana 7. decembra 2005. godine on je dobio odgovor koji je potpisao Načelnik Direktorata za izvršenje kazni Ministarstva pravde, kojim se njegov zahtjev odbija. U tom dopisu se, između ostalog, navodilo:

"Utvrđeno je da (podnosilac predstavke) još nije osuđen. Kada bude osuđen treba da bude prebačen u zatvor za povratnike.

Uključivanje povratnika u obrazovne i radne programe u zatvoru za lica koja nisu povratnici vodilo bi do povrede uslova da različite kategorije štićenika treba da budu odvojene i da zasebno učestvuju u popravnim programima..."

Dana 21. decembra 2005. godine podnosilac predstavke žalio se da su mu odbili upis u školu, tvrdeći da se, pošto mu nije izrečena druga zatvorska kazna, on nije mogao tretirati kao "povratnik". U pisanom podnesku on se eksplicitno pozvao na pravo na obrazovanje koje se garantuje članom 53 Ustava i članom 2 protokola br. 1 uz Konvenciju, te na pravilo 77 Standardnih minimalnih pravila UN za postupanje prema zatvorenicima, koja, između ostalog, predviđaju da "će se predvidjeti dalje obrazovanje svih zatvorenika koji od toga mogu imati koristi". Po mišljenju podnosioca predstavke Zakon o izvršenju kazni iz 1969. godine (v. stavove 15-19 ove presude) uvodi obavezu vlastima da obezbijede pristup obrazovanju licima u pritvoru koja je jednaka obavezi da se taj pristup pruži zatvorenicima koji služe kaznu. Odbijanje zahtjeva podnosioca predstavke nije imalo legitiman cilj i bilo je suprotno Zakonu o prosvjeti i Konvenciji Ujedinjenih nacija protiv diskriminacije u obrazovanju (objavljenoj u Službenom listu 1963. godine). Tokom rasprave on je naveo da je drugim licima u njegovoj situaciji dozvoljeno da se obrazuju i da zatvorske vlasti nisu pokazale nijedan pravni osnov za odbijanje njegovog zahtjeva. Upravnik zatvora priznao je da je ranije bila praksa da se obezbijedi pristup školi, ali da je to prekinuto zbog bojazni vezanih za uticaj "povratnika" na lica koja nisu bila povratnici. Podnosiocu predstavke odbijen je pristup pošto je trebalo da bude tretiran kao "povratnik" u smislu Zakona o izvršenju kazni iz 1969. godine (v. stav 20 ove presude) i on nije mogao da pohađa školu jer bi tako bio u kontaktu sa licima koja nisu bila povratnici.
U presudi od 24. marta 2006. godine Regionalni sud u Staroj Zagori prihvatio je žalbu podnosioca predstavke i naredio Upravniku zatvora da ga uključi u zatvorski obrazovni program. Ovaj sud je našao, naročito, da je odbijanje Upravnika zatvora bilo bazirano na pretpostavci da je podnosilac predstavke bio "povratnik" i da, pošto je zatvor u Staroj Zagori bio za lica koja nisu bila povratnici, jeste bila dužnost zatvorske uprave da ga isključi iz programa u koje su bili uključeni drugi štićenici, od kojih većina nisu bili povratnici. Sud je našao da podnosilac predstavke nije mogao da se smatra "povratnikom" u smislu definicije date u članu 158 Zakona o izvršenju kazni jer, iako je njemu ranije bila izrečena zatvorska kazna, postupak koji se u tom trenutku vodio protiv njega i dalje je bio u toku i on još nije bio osuđen, niti mu je izrečena kazna drugi put. Pravilo kojim se propisuje da se u zatvoru "povratnici" drže odvojeno od lica koja nisu povratnici stoga nije moglo da se primijeni.
Upravnik zatvora žalio se na ovu presudu. On je tvrdio da je, prema principu različitog ophođenja prema različitim kategorijama zatvorenika, podnosilac predstavke bio smješten u grupu onih pritvorenih lica koja bi, u slučaju osuđujuće presude, ulazila u kategoriju "povratnika". Nadalje, zatvor Stara Zagora nije bio zatvor za "povratnike" i smještaj "povratnika", uključujući i da se prema licima u pritvoru postupa kao prema povratnicima predstavljao je izuzetak.
Prije ispitivanja žalbe, 9. avgusta 2006. godine podnosilac predstavke tražio je od Upravnika da ga upiše u zatvorsku školu za narednu školsku godinu koja je počinjala 15. septembra 2006. godine. Pošto nije dobio odgovor, dana 21. septembra 2006. godine on je sličan zahtjev predao Direktoratu za izvršenje kazni Ministrstva pravde.
Dana 26. septembra 2006. godine Vrhovni upravni sud donio je pravosnažnu presudu u odnosu na pritužbu podnosioca predstavke da je bio isključen iz škole. Pred Vrhovnim upravnim sudom, tužilac (koji se uključuje u sve postupke Vrhovnog suda) bio je mišljenja da je odluka Regionalnog suda u Staroj Zagori bila ispravna i da žalbu Upravnika zatvora treba odbiti. Tužilac je dalje izrazio stav da su osnovi kasacione žalbe bili nejasni i da su se bazirali na netačnom tumačenju nadležnog prava, suprotnom tačnom tumačenju koje je dao prvostepeni sud u odluci protiv koje je uložena žalba. U svojoj odluci Vrhovni sud konstatovao je da je prije izmjena i dopuna iz 2002. godine, Zakon o izvršenju kazni propisivao obavezu obaveznog obrazovanja svih zatvorenika koji su mlađi od 40 godina. Važeće odredbe predviđale su obavezno obrazovanje samo za lica mlađa od 16 godina; a za lica starosti 16 godina i više postojala je obaveza države da obrazovanje stavi na raspolaganje onim zatvorenicima koji su željeli da učestvuju. Međutim, osuđeni zatvorenici imali su pravo po domaćem pravu na pristup obrazovanju samo ako su bili osuđeni na zatvorsku kaznu u trajanju od godinu dana i duže, da bi se obezbijedilo da imaju mogućnost da završe školsku godinu (v. stavove 15-19 ove presude). Vrhovni sud zaključio je:

"pravo na obrazovanje (obavezno ili dobrovoljno) predviđeno je i uređeno zakonima i drugim propisima Republike Bugarske isključivo u odnosu na lica koja su lišena slobode zbog pravosnažne osuđujuće presude (лишаване от свобода), a ne i u odnosu na lica lišena slobode u skladu sa mjerama zadržavanja u pritvoru (задържане под стража)".

Slijedi da je pitanje da li su zatvorske vlasti nezakonito smatrale podnosioca predstavke "povratnikom" nerelevantno.

Pozivajući se na ovu presudu, 6. novembra 2006. godine Direktorat za izvršenje kazni odgovorio je na zahtjev podnosioca predstavke od 9. avgusta i 21. septembra 2006. godine, obavještavajući ga da će biti upisan u zatvorsku školu u školskoj godini 2006/07.
Nakon toga je podnosilac predstavke bio osuđen i izrečena mu je kazna zatvora za krivično djelo posjedovanja vatrenog oružja. Dana 20. aprila 2007. godine on je premješten iz zatvora Stara Zagora u zatvor Pazardjik da tamo odsluži kaznu. Vlada je obavijestila Sud da podnosilac predstavke nije predao nijedan zahtjev za učestvovanje u obrazovnim aktivnostima u tom zatvoru. Međutim, u svojim pisanim napomenama predatim Sudu, podnosilac predstavke naveo je da nije predao zahtjev jer u zatvoru Pazardjik nije bilo škole. Uz to, on je Sudu poslao dokumenta koja su pokazivala da je najmanje jedna zatvorenik koji se smatrao "povratnikom" uspješno učestvovao u obrazovnom programu u zatvoru Stara Zagora. Podnosilac predstavke pušten je iz zatvora Pazardjik dana 27. jula 2008. godine.

II. RELEVANTNO DOMAĆE PRAVO

A. Pristup zatvorenika obrazovanju

Tokom predmetnog perioda, pristup zatvorenika obrazovanju bio je uređen Zakonom o izvršenju kazni iz 1969. godine (koji je bio na snazi do juna 2009. godine; u daljem tekstu: Zakon iz 1969. godine); propisima o sprovođenju Zakona iz 1969. godine; Uredbom br. 2 od 19. aprila 1999. godine o statusu pritvorenih lica (koja je bila na snazi do 2007. godine, u daljem tekstu: Uredba); Nacionalnim zakonom o obrazovanju iz 1991. godine (u daljem tekstu: Zakon iz 1991. godine). Treba konstatovati da se prije 2002. godine status lica u pritvoru uređivao uredbama koje je izdavao Ministar pravde. Tokom 2002. godine ta su pravila ugrađena u Zakon iz 1969. godine. Izgleda da je Uredba nastavila da se koristi do 2006. godine kada su pospisi za sprovođenje Zakona iz 1969. godine zamijenjeni odredbama koje su detaljnije uređivale status lica u pritvoru.
Prije 2002. godine obrazovanje u zatvoru bilo je obavezno za zatvorenike mlađe od 40 godina (član 39(1) Zakona iz 1969. godine), ali samo kada su ta lica bila osuđena na zatvorsku kaznu od godinu dana i više (član 47(1) propisa za sprovođenje Zakona iz 1969. godine. Član 39(1) Zakona iz 1969. godine ukinut je 2002. godine ali je i dalje u upotrebi ostala odredba u propisima za sprovođenje.
Relevantne odredbe predviđale su tri različita režima za pristup obrazovanju. Prvo, zatvorenici starosti između 14 i 18 godina, smješteni u "popravne domove", a ne u zatvore, imali su pravo da pohađaju nastavu. Obrazovanje je bilo obavezno za zatvorenike od 16 godina i mlađe (v. član 39(3) Zakona iz 1969. godine i član 7(1) Zakona iz 1991. godine. Stariji osuđeni zatvorenici imali su pravo da traže da se uključe u obrazovne programe, a zatvorska uprava imala je obavezu da to obezbijedi (član 39(4) Zakona iz 1969. godine i član 75(1) propisa za sprovođenje Zakona iz 1969. godine. Prilikom prijema u zatvorsku instituciju zatvorske vlasti imale su obavezu da naprave procjenu individualnih potreba zatvorenika kada je riječ o obrazovanju (član 66a(1)(3) Zakona iz 1969. godine). Zatvorenici koji su bili uključeni u obrazovne aktivnosti i nisu radili imali su pravo da im se vrijeme provedeno u školi odbije od ukupne kazne na osnovu istih pravila kao za radne dane (član 103(4) Zakona iz 1969. godine).
Član 128 Zakona iz 1969. godine propisivao je da se u odsustvu drugih odredbi, odredbe Zakona iz 1969. godine koje se odnose na osuđene zatvorenike primjenjuju i na lica koja se nalaze u pritvoru. Slična odredba nalazi se i u propisima za sprovođenje Zakona iz 1969. godine (član 168).
U novo-donesenom Zakonu o izvršenju kazni i istražnom pritvoru iz 2009. godine (u daljem tekstu: Zakon iz 2009. godine) nalaze se slične odredbe. Propisano je da je obavezno uključivanje u obrazovni program osuđenih zatvorenika mlađih od 16 godina (član 162(1) Zakona iz 2009. godine). Uprava je mogla da obezbijedi obrazovne programe za zatvorenike starije od tog uzrasta (član 162(2)). Uključivanje lica u pritvoru u obrazovne programe se "podstiče" (član 257(2)). I na kraju, vrijeme provedeno u školi trebalo je da se odbije od ukupne kazne na osnovu pravila koja su važila za dane rada (član 178(4)).

B. Povratnici

4. U relevantno vrijeme, član 158(1) Zakona iz 1969. godine predviđao je da, za svrhe tog zakona, termin "povratnici" znači:

" (a) lica koja su osuđena dva ili više puta na zatvorsku kaznu za krivično djelo učinjeno sa predumišljajem, gdje to nije iziskivalo kumulativnu kaznu..., ako su zapravo odslužili kaznu zatvora;

(b) lica koja su osuđena za krivično djelo koje se kvalifikuje kao opasno povratništvo."

Član 12 Zakona iz 1969. godine prospisuje da "povratnici" svoje kazne služe u zasebnim institucijama. Član 8a(3) predviđa da se "popravne aktivnosti za različite kategorije zatvorenika obavljaju zasebno". "Povratnici" u smislu tog zakona mogu da se prebace u druge zatvore samo u izuzetnim slučajevima ako su se reformisali i ako nema opasnosti da će predstavljati negativan uticaj na druge zatvorenike (član 12(2) Zakona iz 1969. godine). Lica u pritvoru koja su ranije bila osuđena na zatvorsku kaznu i nisu rehabilitovana smještana su odvojeno od drugih pritvorenih lica (član 130б(1)(5) Zakona iz 1969. godine). Zakon iz 2009. godine sadrži slične odredbe.

II. RELEVANTNI DOKUMENTI SAVJETA EVROPE

A. Evropska zatvorska pravila

Evropska zatvorska pravila preporuke su Komiteta ministara državama članicama Savjeta Evrope za minimum standarda koje treba primjenjivati u zatvorima. Države se podstiču da se rukovode ovim Pravilima u svom zakonodavstvu i politikama i da obezbijede široku distribuciju pravila svojim sudskim vlastima, zatvorskom osoblju i štićenicima.

1. Preporuka br. 87(3) Evropskih zatvorskih pravila

Evropska zatvorska pravila iz 1987. godine usvojio je Komitet ministara Savjeta Evrope 12. februara 1987. godine. U njima su se nalazile sljedeće odredbe koje su se, između ostalog, odnosile na zatvorenike kojima nije suđeno:

"11.1 U raspoređivanju zatvorenika u različite institucije ili režime, mora se na pravi način uzeti u obzir njihova pravosudna i pravna situacija (da li je riječ o neosuđenim ili osuđenim licima lišenim slobode, licima koja su krivično djelo počinila prvi put ili često čine krivična djela, licima sa kratkom kaznom ili sa dugom kaznom), te o posebnim uslovima njihovog tretmana, njihovim medicinskim potrebama, polu i starosti.

...

3. u principu, neosuđena lica lišena slobode biće pritvorena odvojeno od osuđenih zatvorenika ukoliko ne daju svoju saglasnost da budu smještena ili uključena zajedno sa njima u organizovane aktivnosti koje im koriste.

...

91. Ne dovodeći u pitanje zakonita pravila za zaštitu slobode pojedinaca ili propisivanje postupaka koje treba poštovati kada je riječ o neosuđenim licima lišenim slobode, ta lica, za koja se pretpostavlja da su nevina dok se ne utvrdi njihova krivica, moraju se ... tretirati bez ograničenja, izuzev onih koja su neophodna za kazneni postupak i bebjednost institucije.

...

96. Neosuđenim licima lišenim slobode mora se, kadgod je to moguće, ponuditi prilika da rade, ali oni nemaju obavezu da rade. Oni koji odluče da rade moraju biti plaćeni kao i drugi zatvorenici. Ukoliko postoji mogućnost obrazovanja ili stručne obuke za neosuđena lica lišena slobode, oni se podstiču da te mogućnosti iskoriste."

2. Preporuka br. (89) 12 o obrazovanju u zatvoru

Dana 13. oktobra 1989. godine Komitet ministara donio je preporuku o obrazovanju u zatvoru. Preambula te preporuke glasi:

"Uzimajući u obzir da pravo na obrazovanje predstavlja temeljno pravo; imajući u vidu važnost obrazovanja u razvoju pojedinca i zajednice; shvatajući naročito da je veliki broj zatvorenika imao veoma malo uspjeha u

dosadašnjem obrazovanju i da zbog toga ima potrebu za obrazovanjem;

uzimajući u obzir da obrazovanje u zatvoru pomaže da zatvori budu što humaniji i poboljšava uslove boravka u zatvoru;

uzimajući u obzir da je obrazovanje u zatvoru veoma važan način olakšavanja povratka zatvorenika u zajednicu;

Prepoznajući da u praktičnoj primjeni određenih prava ili mjera, u skladu sa preporukama koje slijede, razlika između zatvorenika i pritvorenih lica mogu biti opravdana; uzimajući u obzir Preporuku br. R (87) 3 o Evropskim zatvorskim pravilima i Preporuku br. R (81) 17 o politici za obrazovanje odraslih".

Preporuka, između ostalog, dalje navodi:

"1. Svi zatvorenici moraju imati pristup obrazovanju, koje se sastoji od školskih predmeta, stručnog obrazovanja, kreativnih i kulturnih aktivnosti, fizičkog obrazovanja i sporta, društvenog obrazovanja i biblioteke;...

4. Svi lica uključena u vođenje zatvorskog sistema i upravljanje zatvorima treba da olakšaju i pomognu obrazovanje u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri;...

6. Treba uložiti sve napore da se podstaknu zatvorenici da aktivno učestvuju u svim aspektima obrazovanja;...

17. Sredstva, oprema i nastavno osoblje koje je potrebno da bi se zatvorenicima omogućilo da dobiju odgovarajuće obrazovanje treba da se stave na raspolaganje."

3. Preporuka br. R (2006) 2 o Evropskim zatvorskim pravilima

Dana 11. januara 2006. godine Komitet ministara Savjeta Evrope donio je novu verziju Evropskih zatvorskih pravila, konstatujući da pravila iz 1987. godine "treba suštinski revidirati i ažurirati da bi se uzela obzir dešavanja do kojih je došlo u kaznenoj politici, praksi određivanja kazni i ukupnom upravljanju zatvorima u Evropi". Pravila iz 2006. godine sadrže sljedeće osnovne principe

"Osnovni principi

1. Sva lica koja su lišena slobode moraju biti tretirana sa poštovanjem prema njihovim ljudskim pravima.

2. Lica lišena slobode zadržavaju sva prava koja im nisu zakonski oduzeta odlukom kojom im se izriče kazna ili im se određuje pritvor.

3 Ograničenja koja se postavljaju licima lišenim slobode moraju biti minimalna nužna i srazmjerna legitimnom cilju zbog koga su uvedena.

4. Zatvorski uslovi kojima se krše ljudska prava zatvorenika ne mogu se opravdati nedostatkom resursa.

5. Život u zatvoru biće kolikogod je moguće sličan pozitivnim aspektima života u zajednici.

6. Svako lišenje slobode vodiće se tako da olakša reintegraciju u slobodno društvo lica koja su lišena slobode. ... Područje djelovanja i primjena

...

10.2 U principu, lica kojima su pritvor odredile sudske vlasti i lica koja su lišena slobode nakon što je u odnosu na njih donesena osuđujuća presuda treba da budu lišena slobode samo u zatvorima, tj. u institucijama koje su rezervisane za lica lišena slobode iz ove dvije kategorije.

Raspoređivanje i smještaj

...

18.8. U odlučivanju da se zatvorenici smjeste u naročite zatvore ili u naročita odjeljenja u nekom zatvoru mora se na odgovarajući način uzeti u obzir potreba da se odvoje:

a. neosuđeni od osuđenih zatvorenika;

b. muškarci od žena; i

c. mlađi punoljetni zatvorenici od starijih zatvorenika.

18.9 Moguća su odstupanja od obaveze za odvojenim smještajem u smislu stava 8 da bi se zatvorenicima omogućilo da zajednički učestvuju u organizovanim aktivnostima, ali takve grupe uvijek moraju biti odvojene tokom noći, osim ukoliko se oni ne slože da budu smješteni zajedno, a uprava zatvora procijeni da je to u najboljem interesu svih zatvornika o kojima je riječ.

...

Obrazovanje

28.1 Svaki zatvor mora da nastoji da svim zatvorenicima omogući pristup obrazovnim programima koji su što je moguće sveobuhvatniji i koji zadovoljavaju njihove individuaine potrebe, istovremeno vodeći računa o njihovim težnjama.

28.2. Prioritet se mora dati zatvorenicima koji imaju potrebu za opismenjavanjem i onima koji nemaju osnovno ili stručno obrazovanje.

28.3 Posebna se pažnja poklanja obrazovanju mlađih zatvorenika i onih sa posebnim potrebama.

28.4 Obrazovanje ne smije da ima manji status od rada u zatvorskom režimu i zatvorenici ne smiju da budu finansijski ili na neki drugi način oštećeni zato što učestvuju u obrazovanju.

28.5. Svaka institucija mora da ima biblioteku koju mogu koristiti svi zatvorenici i koja je adekvatno opremljena velikim nizom različitih rekreativnih i obrazovnih izvora, knjiga i drugih medija.

28.6 Kadgod je to moguće, zatvorska biblioteka treba da bude organizovana u saradnji sa bibliotečkim službama zajednice.

28.7 Što je više moguće, obrazovanje zatvorenika mora da:

a. bude integrisano u sistem obrazovanja i stručnog osposobljavanja zemlje tako da nakon oslobađanja zatvorenici mogu da nastave obrazovanje i stručno osposobljavanje bez teškoća; i

b. se odvija pod pokroviteljstvom eksternih obrazovnih institucija.

...

Neosuđena lica lišena slobode

Pristup neosuđenim licima lišenim slobode

95.1 Na režim za neosuđena lica lišena slobode ne smije da utiče mogućnost da će oni u budućem periodu biti osuđeni za krivično djelo.

95.2 Pravila iz ovog dijela predviđaju dodatne zaštitne mehanizme za neosuđena lica lišena slobode.

95.3 U postupanju sa neosuđenim licima lišenim slobode zatvorske se vlasti moraju rukovoditi pravilima koja se primjenjuju na sve zatvorenike i moraju omogućiti neosuđenim licima lišenim slobode da učestvuju u raznim aktivnsotima predviđenim u tim pravilima.

...

Pristup režimu za osuđene zatvorenike

101. Ukoliko neosuđeno lice lišeno slobode traži da mu bude dozvoljeno da se na njega primijeni režim za osuđene zatvorenike, zatvorske vlasti moraju koliko god je to moguće udovoljiti takvom zahtjevu."

PRAVO

...

II. MERITUM

A. Navodna povreda člana 2 Protokola br. 1 uz Konvenciju

Podnosilac predstavke žalio se da mu je bio uskraćen pristup školi u zatvoru u Staroj Zagori, što je predstavljalo povredu člana 13 Konvencije i člana 2 Protokola br. 1 uz Konvenciju. Sud smatra da ovu pritužbu treba ispitati po članu 2 Protokola br. 1, koji glasi

"Niko ne može biti lišen prava na obrazovanje. U vršenju svih svojih funkcija u oblasti obrazovanja i nastave država poštuje pravo roditelja da obezbjede obrazovanje i nastavu koji su u skladu s njihovim vjerskim i filozofskim uvjerenjima."

1. Argumenti strana

Podnosilac predstavke naveo je da domaće zakonodavstvo nije eksplicitno branilo licima u pritvoru da učestvuju u obrazovnom programu zatvora i da je stoga prema njemu trebalo da se postupa na isti način kao prema osuđenim zatvorenicima i da mu se dozvoli pristup obrazovanju. Naročito je, po njegovom mišljenju, na sva lica lišena slobode trebalo da se primjenjuju odredbe koje se odnose na pristup osuđenih zatvorenika obrazovnim kapacitetima. U svom podnesku, domaće vlasti tumačile su relevantne odredbe na pogrešan način i zbog toga su prema njemu postupile diskriminatorski; ograničile su njegova prava više nego što je bilo neophodno za svrhe njegovog lišenja slobode; i automatski su ga i proizvoljno lišile prava na obrazovanje.
Podnosilac predstavke takođe je imao prigovor na osnove na koje su se pozvale zatvorske vlasti i Vlada u svojim zapažanjima, naime, da je njega kao lice za koje je postojala vjerovatnoća da će biti osuđeno kao "povratnik" bilo opravdano isključiti iz škole u interesu lica koja nisu bila povratnici koja su pohađala tu školu. On je istakao da je tokom perioda u kome je on bio lišen slobode u Staroj Zagori bilo osuđenih zatvorenika koji su bili klasifikovani kao "povratnici", a koji su pohađali zatvorsku školu. U svom podnesku time je pokazao da princip odvajanja "povratnika" od drugih zatvorenika nije poštovan. Nadalje, podnosilac predstavke obrazložio je da je bilo nelogično isključiti ga iz škole na osnovu toga što je za njega, kao neosuđeno lice lišeno slobode, postojala mogućnost da će biti oslobođen i da će morati da ode prije završetka školske godine. Tom prilikom, on je proveo gotovo dvije pune školske godine u pritvoru u zatvoru u Staroj Zagori. Da su zatvorske vlasti imale bilo kakvih sumnji u vezi sa trajanjem njegovog pritvora, mogle su da se raspitaju kod Tužilaštva. Podnosilac predstavke naveo je da je do trenutka donošenja osuđujuće presude protiv njega on imao pravo na pretpostavku nevinosti i da nije trebalo da mu bude uskraćeno pravo na obrazovanje tokom tog perioda. Kada je bio osuđen i premješten u zatvor Pazardjik, on nije mogao da se obrazuje jer u tom zatvoru nije bilo škole.
Vlada je navela da je, u skladu sa sudskom praksom Suda, na domaćim vlastima da urede i planiraju obrazovne kapacitete u svojoj zemlji. Odluka zatvorskih vlasti da podnosioca predstavke isključe iz zatvorske škole bila je razumna, s obzirom na potrebu da se primjene različiti standardi i uslovi u odnosu na različite kategorije zatvorenika. Lišenje slobode podnosioca predstavke u zatvoru u Staroj Zagori, otvorenom zatvoru primarno osmišljenom za lica koja nisu povratnici, predstavljalo je izuzetak i u to vrijeme je bilo nejasno koliko dugo će on nastaviti da bude lišen slobode upravo u tom zatvoru. Prvo, Vlada je tvrdila da za podnosioca predstavke koji je bio u pritvoru nije bilo prikladno da pohađa školu sa osuđenim zatvorenicima. Nadalje, prema odredbama Zakona o izvršenju kazni koji je bio na snazi u to vrijeme, licima u pritvoru nije bilo dozvoljeno da se upišu u zatvorsku školu ukoliko nije bilo sigurno da će ostati u zatvoru najmanje jednu školsku godinu. Drugo, pošto je podnosilac predstavke bio lice u pritvoru, izloženo riziku da mu bude izrečena kazna kao "povratniku" nakon donošenja osuđujuće presude, bilo je prikladno da se na njega primjenjuju pravila koja se primjenjuju na zatvorenike "povratnike" (v. stav 20 ove presude). Da to nije učinjeno, zatvorske vlasti ne bi mogle u potpunosti da zaštite zatvorenike koji nisu bili povratnici od kontakta za "povratnicima". Uz to, popuštanje u primjeni pravila na "povratnike" oslabilo bi odvraćajući efekat zatvorske kazne. Da je podnosilac predstavke kasnije bio oslobođen, on bi odmah bio pušten na slobodu i njegova isključenost iz zatvorske škole prestala bi da utiče na njega. I na kraju, Vlada je naglasila da, nakon njegovog prebacivanja u zatvor u gradu Pazardzjik, podnosilac predstavke nije podnio zahtjev da učestvuje u obrazovnim aktivnostima tamo.

C. Ocjena Suda

(a) Opšti principi

Sud će početi isticanjem da zatvorenici generalno gledano nastavljaju da uživaju sva temeljna prava i slobode koje se jemče Konvencijom osim prava na slobodu, pri čemu zakonski izrečen pritvor izričito ulazi u područje djelovanja člana 5 Konvencije. Na primjer, zatvorenici ne smiju biti zlostavljani, podvrgnuti nečovječnom ili ponižavajućem kažnjavanju ili uslovima koji su suprotni članu 3 Konvencije; oni nastavljaju da uživaju pravo na poštovanje porodičnog života, pravo na slobodu izražavanja, pravo na ispovjedanje svoje vjere, pravo na djelotvoran pristup advokatu ili sudu za svrhe člana 6, pravo na poštovanje prepiske i pravo na brak. Svako ograničenje ovih ili drugih prava mora biti opravdano, iako takvo opravdanje može da se nađe i u razlozima bezbjednosti, naročito sprečavanja kriminala i nereda, što neizbježno proizlazi iz okolnosti boravka u zatvoru (v. Hirst protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva. (br. 2) (GC), br. 74025/01, stav 69, ECHR 2005-IX, i predmeti koji su tu citirani; v. takođe Stummer protiv Austrije (GC), br. 37452/02, stav 99, ECHR 2011). U presudi u predmetu Hirst, koji je citiran u tekstu ove presude, stav 70, Sud je naveo da "nema... riječi o tome da zatvorenik gubi svoja prava koja ima po Konvenciji samo zato što ima status lica lišenog slobode nakon osuđujuće presude". Ovaj princip se primjenjuje a fortiori u odnosu na lice, kao što je podnosilac predstavke tokom perioda o kome je riječ, koje nije osuđeno i koje mora, stoga, da uživa pretpostavku nevinosti (v. na primjer, Laduna protiv Slovačke, br. 31827/02, stavovi 64 i 67, ECHR 2011).
Što se tiče prava na obrazovanje, iako član 2 Protokola br. 1 ne može da se tumači kao da uvodi obavezu Stranama ugovornicama da uspostave ili subvencioniraju posebne obrazovne ustanove, svaka država koja to uradi ima obavezu da omogući djelotvoran pristup takvim ustanovama. Drugim riječima, pristup obrazovnim institucijama koje postoje u određenom trenutku sastavni je dio prava izloženog u prvoj rečenici člana 2 Protokola br. 1 (v. Predmet "koji se odnosi na određene aspekte zakona o korišćenju jezika u obrazovanju u Belgiji", presuda od 23. jula 1968. godine, Serija A br. 6, stavovi 3-4; Ponomaryovi protiv Bugarske, br. 5335/05, stav 49, ECHR 2011; i Catan i drugi protiv Republike Moldavije i Rusije (GC), br. 43370/04, 8252/05 i 18454/06, stav 137, ECHR 2012 (izvodi)). Ove odredbe primjenjuju se na osnovno, srednje i visoko obrazovanje (v. Leyla Şahin protiv Turske (GC), br. 44774/98, stavovi 134 i 136, ECHR 2005-XI).
Sud, međutim, priznaje da, uprkos njegovom značaju, pravo na obrazovanje nije apsolutno, već da može da podliježe ograničenjima. Pod uslovom da se ne povređuje suština ovog prava, ta ograničenja su dozvoljena implicitno pošto pravo pristupa "po samoj svojoj prirodi iziskuje da ga uredi država". Da bi obezbijedio da ograničenja koja su izrečena ne umanjuju predmetno pravo u toj mjeri da štete samoj njegovoj suštini i uskraćuju mu djelotvornost, Sud se mora uvjeriti da su ta ograničenja predvidiva za lica na koja se odnose i da imaju legitiman cilj. Međutim, za razliku od stava u odnosu na članove 8 do 11 Konvencije, Sud nije obavezan iscrpnom listom "legitimnih ciljeva" po članu 2 Protokola br. 1. Nadalje, smatra se da je ograničenje u skladu sa članom 2 Protokola br. 1 samo ako postoji razuman odnos srazmjernosti između upotrijebljenih sredstava i cilja koji se ograničenjem pokušao postići. Iako je konačna odluka o poštovanju uslova Konvencije u rukama Suda, strane ugovornice imaju određeno polje slobodne procjene u ovoj oblasti (v. Catan, citirano ranije u tekstu ove presude, stav 140, i tu citirani predmeti).
Tačno je da je obrazovanje djelatnost koju je složeno organizovati i skupo voditi, a da su resursi koje vlasti mogu da opredijele za obrazovanje nužno ograničeni. Takođe je tačno da u donošenju odluka o tome kako urediti pristup obrazovanju država mora da postigne ravnotežu između obrazovnih potreba lica u njenoj nadležnosti sa jedne strane i svojih ograničenih kapaciteta da ih zadovolji sa druge strane. Međutim, Sud ne može da previdi činjenicu da, za razliku od nekih drugih javnih službi, obrazovanje predstavlja pravo koje uživa direktnu zaštitu po Konvenciji. To je takođe veoma posebna vrsta javne službe, koja ne samo da direktno koristi licima koja je koriste, već služi i širim društvenim ciljevima. Zaista, Sud je već imao prilike da istakne da je "u demokratskom društvu, pravo na obrazovanje... prijeko potrebno za unapređivanje ljudskih prava (i) da igra... ulogu od fundamentalnog značaja..." (v. mutatis mutandis, Ponomaryovi protiv Bugarske, br. 5335/05, stav 55, ECHR 2011).

(b) Primjena ovih principa na činjenice ovog konkretnog predmeta

Iako Sud zna za preporuke Komiteta ministara koje kažu da obrazovni kapaciteti treba da se stave na raspolaganje svim zatvorenicima (v. stavove 21-24 ove presude), Sud podsjeća da član 2 Protokola br. 1 ne obavezuje strane ugovornice da organizuju obrazovne kapacitete za zatvorenike kada takvi kapaciteti već ne postoje (v. Natoli protiv Italije, br. 26161/95, odluka Komisije od 18. maja 1998. godine, bez izvještaja i Epistatu protiv Rumunije, br. 29343/10, stav 63, 24. septembar 2013). Međutim, konkretna pritužba podnosioca predstavke odnosi se na odbijanje da mu se da pristup obrazovnoj instituciji koja je već ranije postojala, naime školi u zatvoru Stara Zagora. Kako je navedeno ranije u tekstu ove presude, pravo pristupa već postojećoj obrazovnoj instituciji ulazi u područje djelovanja člana 2 Protokola br. 1. Svako ograničavanje ovog prava moralo je, stoga, da bude predvidivo, da ima legitiman cilj i da bude srazmjerno tom cilju (v. stav 32 ove presude). Iako član 2 Protokola br. 1 ne uvodi pozitivnu obavezu da se obezbijedi obrazovanje u zavoru u svim okolnostima, kada je takva mogućnost na raspolaganju, ona ne treba da bude predmet proizvoljnih i nerazumnih ograničenja.
Sud nalazi da je otvoreno za sumnju da li je ograničenje postavljeno podnosiocu predstavke bilo dovoljno predvidivo za svrhe člana 2 Protokola br. 1. Relevantni zakonodavni okvir predviđao je da osuđeni zavorenici starosti 16 godina i više imaju pravo, na zahtjev, da budu uključeni u obrazovne programe i da, ukoliko jasna pravila da treba da bude suprotno na postoje, odredbe koje se odnose na osuđene zatvorenike treba da se jednako primjenjuju na pritvorena lica. Jedina izričita odredba koja se odnosi na prava lica u pritvoru na obrazovanje bila je ta da zatvorske vlasti treba da "podstiču" učešće pritvorenih lica u obrazovnim programima (v stavove 1519 ove presude).
Nepostojanje jasnoće zakonskog okvira vidi se u činjenici da su tokom domaćeg postupka i postupka pred ovim Sudom domaće vlasti navodile razne razloge za odbijanje zahtjeva podnosioca predstavke da se upiše u školu. Njegov zahtjev odbio je Direktorat za izvršenje kazni Minsitarstva pravde jer će "kada bude osuđen" on biti prebačen u zatvor za "povratnike" i da bi u međuvremenu njegovo miješanje sa licima koja nisu povratnici u zatvorskoj školi povrijedilo zakonski propisan uslov da treba odvajati "povratnike" zatvorenike od zatvorenika koji to nisu (v. stav 7 ove presude). Zbog toga je Upravnik zatvora takođe odbio njego zahtjev po sličnim osnovama (v. stav 8 ove presude). Kada se podnosilac predstavke žalio na odluku zatvorskih vlasti da ga isključe iz škole, Regionalni sud Stare Zagore našao je da on ne može da bude klasifikovan kao "povratnik" i naredio je Upravniku zatvora da ga primi u školu. Na dalju žalbu Upravnika zatvora, Vrhovni upravni sud poništio je presudu Regionalnog suda, na osnovu toga da podnosilac predstavke nema pravo da učestvuje u obrazovnom programu zatvora jer je pravo na obrazovanje predviđeno relevantnim zakonima kao pravo koje se primjenjuje isključivo na lica lišena slobode po pravosnažnoj osuđujućoj presudi, a ne na pritvorena lica (v. stav 12 ove presude).
Uz to, tokom postupaka pred ovim Sudom, Vlada se pozvala na tri različita osnova da opravda isključivanje podnosioca predstavke iz škole. Prvo, oni su naveli da nije bilo prikladno da on, kao lice u pritvoru, pohađa školu sa osuđenim zatvorenicima. Drugo, oni su naveli da nije bilo prikladno da podnosilac predstavke, kao lice u pritvoru čiji je period pritvora prije suđenja neograničen, pohađa školu koja je namijenjena osuđenim zatvorenicima koji služe zatvorsku kaznu od 12 mjeseci i više. Treće, oni su obrazložili da, pošto je kod podnosioca predstavke postojao rizik da će mu biti izrečena kazna kao "povratniku", ne bi bilo u interesu osuđenih zatvorenika koji nisu bili "povratnici" i koji su pohađali školu da se podnosiocu predstavke dozvoli da pohađa nastavu.
Po mišljenju Suda, vrijedno je pažnje da Vlada nije potkrijepila svoje argumente nijednim dokazom koji se odnosi na uslove koji su se primjenjivali u zatvoru Stara Zagora. Potreba da se podnosilac predstavke zaštiti tako što će biti odvojen od osuđenih zatvorenika, jer je imao status pritvorenog lica, nije bila osnov na koji su se zatvorske vlasti pozvale kada su odbacile zahtjeve podnosioca predstavke. Štaviše, bilo je jasno iz mnogih zajhtjeva podnosioca predstavke da mu se dozvoli da pohađa školu da on nema primjedbi na učestvovanje u toj aktivnosti zajendo sa osuđenim zatvorenicima. U materijalu koji je pred Sudom nema dokaza koji bi pokazali da bi došlo do bilo kakve štete po lica u pritvoru u kontrolisanom i nadziranom okruženju učionice, a ni da su lica u pritvoru držana odvojeno od osuđenih zatvorenika ili "povratnika" u zatvoru Stara Zagora i, ako jesu, da se to odvajanje primjenjivalo na sve aspekte režima u okviru tog atvora.
Drugi osnov na koji se pozvala Vlada bio je neodređenost trajanja pritvora i uslov propisan u domaćem pravu da zatvorenici moraju služiti kaznu od godinu dana i duže da bi mogli da se upišu u zatvorske škole. Međutim Vlada nije objasnila zašto je to bio neophodan uslov za prijem u zatvorsku školu. Kada je riječ, konketno, o licima u pritvoru kao što je podnosilac predstavke, Sud smatra da činjenica da krajnja dužina njihovog pritvora nije sigurna na početku ne treba da se koristi kao opravdanje da im se uskrati pristup obrazovnim kapacitetima, osim možda u slučajevima gdje je jasno iz nekog razloga da će taj pritvor biti kratkog trajanja. Štaviše, Vlada nije pružila Sudu nikakve statističke podatke u vezi sa raspoloživošću resursa u školi kojima bi se opravdala, na primjer, politika koncentrisanja ograničenih resursa na one zatvorenike koji služe najduže kazne.
I na kraju, što se tiče osnova na koje se pozvala Vlada, naime, potrebe da se podnosilac predstavke drži odvojeno od drugih zatvorenika zbog rizika da će možda biti osuđen kao "povratnik", Sud smatra da to nije legitiman razlog, pošto je tokom vremena o kome je ovdje riječ on bio neosuđeno lice lišeno slobode i imao je pravo na poštovanje pretpostavke nevinosti.
Sud stoga smatra da nijedan od osnova na koji se pozvala Vlada nije uvjerljiv, naročito pošto nisu potrijepljeni nikakvim dokazima koji bi se odnosili na precizne modalitete pružanja pristupa obrazovanju u zatvorskoj školi u Staroj Zagori. S druge strane vage mora se postaviti nesumnjivi interes podnosioca predstavke da završi srednju školu. Vrijednost pružanja obrazovanja u zatvoru, i za pojedinačne zatvorenike, a i za zatvorsko okruženje i društvo u cjelini nešto je što je prepoznao Komitet ministara Savjeta Evrope u svojim preporukama o obrazovanju u zatvoru i u Evropskim zatvorskim pravilima (v. stavove 21-24 ove presude).
U ovom konkretnom predmetu Vlada nije pružila ni praktične razloge, koji bi se na primjer bazirali na nedostatku resursa u školi, ni jasno obrazloženje pravnih osnova za ograničenje koje je postavljeno podnosiocu predstavke. U tim okolnostima, na osnovu dokaza koje je imao pred sobom, Sud nalazi da odbijanje da se podnosilac predstavke upiše u školu u zatvoru Stara Zagora nije bilo dovoljno predvidivo, nije imalo legitiman cilj i nije bilo srazmjerno tom cilju. Slijedi da je u ovom predmetu došlo do povrede člana 2 Protokola br. 1.

...

IZ NAVEDENIH RAZLOGA, SUD, JEDNOGLASNO

Proglašava predstavku prihvatljivom;
nalazi da je došlo do povrede člana 2 Protokola br. 1 uz Konvenciju;

...

Presuda je sačinjena na engleskom jeziku i objavljena u pisanoj formi 27. maja 2014. godine po pravilu 77 stavovi 2 i 3 Poslovnika Suda.

Françoise Elens-Passos Ineta Ziemele

Sekretar Predsjednik

© Savjet Evrope/Evropski sud za ljudska prava, 2015. godina. Ovaj prevod urađen je uz pomoć Fonda za ljudska prava Savjeta Evrope (www.coe.int/humanrightstrustfund) i nije obavezujući za Sud. Više informacija može se pronaći u punoj izjavi o autorskim pravima na kraju ovog dokumenta.

______________________

Prevod presude preuzet sa https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF VELYO VELEV v. BULGARIA

(Application no. 16032/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

27 May 2014

FINAL

27/08/2014

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.

In the case of Velyo Velev v. Bulgaria,

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

Ineta Ziemele, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Paul Mahoney,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 6 May 2014,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 16032/07) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Mr Velyo Nikolaev Velev (“the applicant”), on 5 March 2007.

2. The applicant was represented by Ms E. Syarova, a lawyer practising in Stara Zagora. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kotseva, of the Ministry of Justice.

3. The applicant alleged that he was not allowed to pursue his education while in Stara Zagora Prison, in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, and that he was treated as a “recidivist” prior to a final conviction in his case, in breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

4. On 14 December 2010 notice of the application was given to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Stara Zagora. In 2003 he was convicted of a fraud offence and served a sentence of imprisonment in Stara Zagora Prison from 11 February 2003 to 9 August 2004. On 1 October 2004 he was arrested on suspicion of unlawful possession of firearms. Between 29 November 2004 and 20 April 2007 he was detained on remand in Stara Zagora Prison, where he claimed to have been detained with “recidivist” prisoners (see paragraph 20 below).

6. As he had never finished his secondary education, the applicant requested to be enrolled in the school operating inside Stara Zagora Prison. In August 2005 he submitted a written request to the governor of the Stara Zagora Prison, asking to be enrolled for the 2005/06 school year. He received no reply before the school year began on 15 September 2005, so he wrote again to the governor on 29 September 2005 and also to the Ministry of Education and the Prosecutor’s Office (in Bulgaria, the Prosecutor is the authority competent to oversee the lawful execution of pre‑trial and post-conviction detention). The applicant received a letter from the Prosecutor, dated 6 October 2005, which said that the prison administration had taken due account of the possibility for the applicant to study, in view of his previous sentence. The Prosecutor further stated that the applicant’s assertion regarding refused access to education had not been confirmed. The applicant also received a reply, dated 24 October 2005, from the Ministry of Education. The letter stated that individuals deprived of their liberty (лишени от свобода) were entitled to continue their education in prison and made no specific reference to remand prisoners.

7. In the meantime, on 19 October 2005 the applicant sent another request to the prison governor, the Ministry of Education and the Appellate Prosecutor. On 26 October 2005 the applicant filed a new request with the prison governor, again asking to be enrolled in the prison school for the 2005/06 school year. Referring to the letter of 24 October 2005, the applicant argued that the Ministry of Education had recognised his right to access to education in prison. On 7 December 2005 he received a reply signed by the Head of the Execution of Punishments Directorate of the Ministry of Justice, rejecting his request. The letter stated, inter alia:

“It was established that [the applicant] has not yet been convicted. Once convicted, he is to be transferred to a prison for recidivists.

The inclusion of recidivists in the educational and work programmes in a prison for non-recidivists would lead to a breach of the requirement that different categories of inmates are to be kept apart and are to participate separately in correctional programmes ...”

8. On 21 December 2005 the applicant appealed against the refusal to enrol him in the school, claiming that in the absence of a second sentence of imprisonment he could not be treated as а “recidivist”. In his written pleadings he relied explicitly on the right to education as guaranteed by Article 53 of the Constitution and by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as well as on Rule 77 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which provided, inter alia, that “[p]rovision shall be made for the further education of all prisoners capable of profiting thereby”. In the applicant’s opinion the Execution of Punishments Act 1969 (see paragraphs 15-18 below) imposed the same obligation on the authorities to provide access to education to prisoners detained on remand as the obligation to provide such access to sentenced prisoners. The refusal pursued no legitimate aim and was contrary to the National Education Act 1991 and the United Nations Convention against Discrimination in Education (published in the Official Gazette in 1963). During the hearing he indicated that other persons in his situation were allowed to study and that the prison authorities had not shown any legal ground for their refusal. The prison governor admitted that there had previously been a practice of providing access to the school, but that this had been discontinued because of concerns about the influence of “recidivists” on “non-recidivists”. The applicant had been refused access as he was to be treated as a “recidivist” within the meaning of the Execution of Punishments Act 1969 (see paragraph 20 below) and could not attend the school because this would bring him into contact with non-recidivists.

9. In a judgment of 24 March 2006, the Stara Zagora Regional Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and ordered the governor to include him in the prison’s educational programme. It found, in particular, that the refusal of the prison governor was based on the assumption that the applicant was a “recidivist” and that since the Stara Zagora Prison was a prison for “non‑recidivists”, it was the duty of the prison administration to exclude him from programmes involving other inmates, most of whom were “non‑recidivists”. The court held that the applicant could not be considered a “recidivist”, as defined by section 158 of the Execution of Punishments Act because, although he had previously received a sentence of imprisonment, the current set of proceedings against him were still pending and he had not yet been convicted and sentenced a second time. The rule requiring that “recidivists” be kept separately from “non-recidivists” in prison was, therefore, inapplicable.

10. The prison governor appealed against that judgment. He argued that, in accordance with the principle for differentiated treatment of the various categories of prisoner, the applicant was accommodated in the group of those remand prisoners who, if convicted, would fall within the category of “recidivists”. Moreover, the Stara Zagora Prison was a prison for “non-recidivists” and the accommodation of “recidivists”, including remand prisoners treated as such, was exceptional.

11. Before the examination of the appeal, on 9 August 2006 the applicant requested the governor to enrol him in the prison school for the new school year, starting 15 September 2006. As he received no reply to his request, on 21 September 2006 he filed a similar request with the Execution of Punishments Directorate of the Ministry of Justice.

12. On 26 September 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court gave a final judgment in respect of the applicant’s complaint about exclusion from the school. Before the Supreme Administrative Court, the prosecutor (who intervenes in all Supreme Court proceedings) was of the view that the decision of the Stara Zagora Regional Court was correct and that the prison governor’s appeal should be dismissed. The prosecutor further expressed the view that the grounds for the cassation appeal were unclear and based on an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law, contrary to the correct interpretation given by the first-instance court in the decision appealed against. In its decision the Supreme Court noted that before the 2002 amendments, the Execution of Punishments Act imposed an obligation for the mandatory education of all prisoners under 40 years of age. The current provision envisaged mandatory education only for persons under the age of 16; for those aged 16 and over there was an obligation on the State to make education available for prisoners who wished to take part. However, convicted prisoners had a right under domestic law to access education only where they had been sentenced to one year or more of imprisonment, to ensure that they would have the possibility of completing a school year (see paragraphs 15-19 below). The Supreme Court concluded:

“[T]he right to education (whether mandatory or voluntary) is envisaged and regulated in the legislation of the Republic of Bulgaria solely in regard of persons deprived of liberty as a result of a final conviction [лишаване от свобода] and not in regard of those deprived of liberty pursuant to a measure of remand [задържане под стража].”

It followed that the question whether the prison authorities unlawfully considered the applicant to be a “recidivist” was irrelevant.

13. Referring to that judgment, on 6 November 2006 the Execution of Punishments Directorate replied to the applicant’s requests of 9 August and 21 September 2006, informing him that he would not be enrolled in the prison school for the year 2006/07.

14. Subsequently, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in respect of the firearms offence. He was removed from Stara Zagora Prison on 20 April 2007 and transferred to Pazardjik Prison to serve his sentence. The Government informed the Court that the applicant did not file any requests to take part in educational activities while at that prison. However, in his observations to the Court, the applicant stated that he did not file a request because there was no school at Pazardjik Prison. In addition, he sent the Court documents which indicated that at least one prisoner considered a “recidivist” had participated successfully in the education programme at Stara Zagora Prison. The applicant was released from Pazardjik Prison on 27 July 2008.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

A. Prisoners’ access to education

15. During the period in question, access by prisoners to education was governed by the Execution of Punishments Act 1969 (in force until June 2009 – “the 1969 Act”); the implementing regulations to the 1969 Act; Ordinance no. 2 of 19 April 1999 on the status of remand prisoners (in force until 2007 – “the Ordinance”); the National Education Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”); and the implementing regulations to the 1991 Act. It should be noted that before 2002 the status of remand prisoners was regulated by ordinances issued by the Minister of Justice. In 2002 such rules were incorporated into the 1969 Act. It appears that the Ordinance continued to be operative until 2006 when the implementing regulations to the 1969 Act were supplemented with provisions regulating in more detail the status of remand prisoners.

16. Before 2002 education in prison was mandatory for prisoners under 40 years of age (section 39(1) of the 1969 Act) but only where they had been sentenced to one year or more of imprisonment (section 47(1) of the implementing regulations to the 1969 Act). Section 39(1) of the 1969 Act was repealed in 2002 but the provision in the implementing regulations remained operative.

17. The relevant provisions provided for three different regimes of access to education. Prisoners aged between 14 and 18, accommodated in “correctional houses” rather than prisons, were entitled to attend classes. Education was mandatory for prisoners aged 16 or under (see section 39(3) of the 1969 Act and section 7(1) of the 1991 Act). Older convicted prisoners were entitled to request inclusion in the educational programmes and the prison administration was duty-bound to provide such (section 39(4) of the 1969 Act and section 75(1) of the implementing regulations to the 1969 Act). At the time of admittance to the prison institution the prison authorities were required to make an assessment as to the individual needs of the prisoner as regards education (section 66a(1)(3) of the 1969 Act). Prisoners who were engaged in educational activities and did not work were entitled to have the time spent in school deducted from their overall sentence based on the same rules as working days (section 103(4) of the 1969 Act).

18. Section 128 of the 1969 Act stipulated that in the absence of other provisions, the provisions of the 1969 Act concerning convicted prisoners were applicable to prisoners detained on remand. A similar provision was contained in the implementing regulations to the 1969 Act (section 168).

19. The newly enacted Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) contained similar provisions. It stipulated that the inclusion in educational programmes of convicted prisoners under 16 years of age was mandatory (section 162(1) of the 2009 Act). The administration could provide educational programmes for prisoners above that age (section 162(2)). The inclusion of remand prisoners in educational programmes was “encouraged” (section 257(2)). Finally, the time spent in school was to be deducted from the overall sentence based on the same rules as those for working days (section 178(4)).

B. Recidivists

20. At the relevant time, section 158(1) of the 1969 Act provided that, for its purposes, “recidivists” would mean:

“(a) persons who have been sentenced two or more times to imprisonment for intentional offences, which did not require one cumulative punishment ..., if they have actually served a sentence of imprisonment;

(b) persons who have been convicted of an offence qualifying as dangerous recidivism.”

Section 12 of the 1969 Act required that “recidivists” serve their sentences in separate institutions. Section 8a(3) provided that “correctional activities in respect of different categories of prisoners [would] be carried out separately”. “Recidivists” within the meaning of that law could be transferred to other prisons only in exceptional cases if they had reformed and there was no danger of negatively influencing other prisoners (section 12(2) of the 1969 Act). Remand prisoners who had previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and were not rehabilitated were accommodated separately from other remand prisoners (section 130б(1)(5) of the 1969 Act). The 2009 Act contains similar provisions.

III. RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE DOCUMENTS

The European Prison Rules

21. The European Prison Rules are recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to member States of the Council of Europe as to the minimum standards to be applied in prisons. States are encouraged to be guided by the Rules in their legislation and policies, and to ensure wide dissemination of the Rules to their judicial authorities and to prison staff and inmates.

1. The 1987 European Prison Rules (Recommendation No. R (87) 3)

22. The 1987 European Prison Rules were adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 12 February 1987. They contained the following provisions, inter alia, in relation to untried prisoners:

“11.1. In allocating prisoners to different institutions or regimes, due account shall be taken of their judicial and legal situation (untried or convicted prisoner, first offender or habitual offender, short sentence or long sentence), of the special requirements of their treatment, of their medical needs, their sex and age.

...

3. In principle, untried prisoners shall be detained separately from convicted prisoners unless they consent to being accommodated or involved together in organised activities beneficial to them.

...

91. Without prejudice to legal rules for the protection of individual liberty or prescribing the procedure to be observed in respect of untried prisoners, these prisoners, who are presumed to be innocent until they are found guilty, shall be ... treated without restrictions other than those necessary for the penal procedure and the security of the institution.

...

96. Untried prisoners shall, whenever possible, be offered the opportunity to work but shall not be required to work. Those who choose to work shall be paid as other prisoners. If educational or trade training is available untried prisoners shall be encouraged to avail themselves of these opportunities.”

2. Recommendation No. (89) 12 on education in prison

23. On 13 October 1989 the Committee of Ministers adopted its Recommendation on education in prison. The Preamble stated:

“Considering that the right to education is fundamental;

Considering the importance of education in the development of the individual and the community;

Realising in particular that a high proportion of prisoners have had very little successful educational experience, and therefore now have many educational needs;

Considering that education in prison helps to humanise prisons and to improve the conditions of detention;

Considering that education in prison is an important way of facilitating the return of the prisoner to the community;

Recognising that in the practical application of certain rights or measures, in accordance with the following recommendations, distinctions may be justified between convicted prisoners and prisoners remanded in custody;

Having regard to Recommendation No. R (87) 3 on the European Prison Rules and Recommendation No. R (81) 17 on adult education policy,

...”

The Recommendation continued as follows, inter alia:

“1. All prisoners shall have access to education, which is envisaged as consisting of classroom subjects, vocational education, creative and cultural activities, physical education and sports, social education and library facilities; ...

4. All those involved in the administration of the prison system and the management of prisons should facilitate and support education as much as possible; ...

6. Every effort should be made to encourage the prisoner to participate actively in all aspects of education; ...

17. The funds, equipment and teaching staff needed to enable prisoners to receive appropriate education should be made available.”

3. Recommendation Rec(2006) 2 on the European Prison Rules

24. On 11 January 2006 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a new version of the European Prison Rules, noting that the 1987 Rules “need[ed] to be substantively revised and updated in order to reflect the developments which ha[d] occurred in penal policy, sentencing practice and the overall management of prisons in Europe”. The 2006 Rules contain the following basic principles:

“Basic principles

1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for their human rights.

2. Persons deprived of their liberty retain all rights that are not lawfully taken away by the decision sentencing them or remanding them in custody.

3. Restrictions placed on persons deprived of their liberty shall be the minimum necessary and proportionate to the legitimate objective for which they are imposed.

4. Prison conditions that infringe prisoners’ human rights are not justified by lack of resources.

5. Life in prison shall approximate as closely as possible the positive aspects of life in the community.

6. All detention shall be managed so as to facilitate the reintegration into free society of persons who have been deprived of their liberty. ...

Scope and application

...

10.2 In principle, persons who have been remanded in custody by a judicial authority and persons who are deprived of their liberty following conviction should only be detained in prisons, that is, in institutions reserved for detainees of these two categories.

...

Allocation and accommodation

...

18.8 In deciding to accommodate prisoners in particular prisons or in particular sections of a prison due account shall be taken of the need to detain:

a. untried prisoners separately from sentenced prisoners;

b. male prisoners separately from females; and

c. young adult prisoners separately from older prisoners.

18.9 Exceptions can be made to the requirements for separate detention in terms of paragraph 8 in order to allow prisoners to participate jointly in organised activities, but these groups shall always be separated at night unless they consent to be detained together and the prison authorities judge that it would be in the best interest of all the prisoners concerned.

...

Education

28.1 Every prison shall seek to provide all prisoners with access to educational programmes which are as comprehensive as possible and which meet their individual needs while taking into account their aspirations.

28.2 Priority shall be given to prisoners with literacy and numeracy needs and those who lack basic or vocational education.

28.3 Particular attention shall be paid to the education of young prisoners and those with special needs.

28.4 Education shall have no less a status than work within the prison regime and prisoners shall not be disadvantaged financially or otherwise by taking part in education.

28.5 Every institution shall have a library for the use of all prisoners, adequately stocked with a wide range of both recreational and educational resources, books and other media.

28.6 Wherever possible, the prison library should be organised in co-operation with community library services.

28.7 As far as practicable, the education of prisoners shall:

a. be integrated with the educational and vocational training system of the country so that after their release they may continue their education and vocational training without difficulty; and

b. take place under the auspices of external educational institutions.

...

Untried prisoners

...

Approach regarding untried prisoners

95.1 The regime for untried prisoners may not be influenced by the possibility that they may be convicted of a criminal offence in the future.

95.2 The rules in this part provide additional safeguards for untried prisoners.

95.3 In dealing with untried prisoners prison authorities shall be guided by the rules that apply to all prisoners and allow untried prisoners to participate in various activities for which these rules provide.

...

Access to the regime for sentenced prisoners

101. If an untried prisoner requests to be allowed to follow the regime for sentenced prisoners, the prison authorities shall as far as possible accede to this request.”

THE LAW

I. ADMISSIBILITY

25. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3(a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

II. THE MERITS

A. Alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1

26. The applicant complained that he was denied access to the school in Stara Zagora Prison, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:

“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

1. The parties’ submissions

27. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation did not explicitly prohibit prisoners detained on remand from taking part in the prison’s educational programme and that therefore he should have been treated in the same manner as convicted prisoners and allowed access to education. In particular, in his view, the provisions regarding access to educational facilities by convicted prisoners should have been applied to all detainees. In his submission, the domestic authorities construed the relevant provisions wrongly and as a result treated him in a discriminatory manner, restricted his rights more than was necessary for the purposes of his detention, and automatically and arbitrarily deprived him of his right to education.

28. The applicant also objected to the ground relied on by the prison authorities and by the Government in their observations, namely that as a person likely to be sentenced as a “recidivist”, it was justifiable to exclude him from the school in the interests of the “non-recidivists” who attended it. He pointed out that during the period he was detained at Stara Zagora there were convicted prisoners classified as “recidivists” who attended the prison school. In his submission, this demonstrated that the principle of separating “recidivists” from other prisoners had not been respected. Furthermore, the applicant reasoned that it was illogical to exclude him from the school on the ground that, as an unconvicted prisoner, there was a chance that he would be acquitted and have to leave before the completion of the school year. In the event, he spent almost two full school years in pre-trial detention at Stara Zagora Prison. Had the prison authorities had any doubt concerning the duration of his detention on remand, they could have made inquiries of the Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant contended that, until convicted, he was entitled to the presumption of innocence and should not have been denied his right to education during this period. Once he was convicted, and moved to Pazardjik Prison, he was unable to pursue his education because there was no school at that prison.

29. The Government contended that, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, it was for the domestic authorities to regulate and plan educational facilities in their country. The decision by the prison authorities to exclude the applicant from the prison school was reasonable, given the need to apply different standards and conditions in relation to different categories of prisoner. The applicant’s detention at Stara Zagora Prison, an open prison designed primarily for “non-recidivist” convicted prisoners, was exceptional and, at the time, it was unclear how long he would continue to be detained there. Firstly, the Government argued that as a remand prisoner it was not appropriate that the applicant should attend school with convicted prisoners. Moreover, under the provisions of the Execution of Punishments Act as applicable at the time, remand prisoners were not allowed to enrol in prison school unless it was certain that they would remain at the prison for at least one school year. Secondly, as a remand prisoner who risked being sentenced as a “recidivist” following conviction, it was appropriate that the rules on “recidivist” prisoners should be applied to him (see paragraph 20 above). If this were not so, the prison authorities would not be able fully to protect “non-recidivist” prisoners from contact with “recidivists”. In addition, a relaxation of the rules applying to “recidivists” would weaken the deterrent effect of imprisonment. Had the applicant subsequently been acquitted, he would immediately have been released and his exclusion from the prison school would have ceased to affect him. Finally, the Government emphasised that, following his transfer to the prison in the town of Pazardzhik, the applicant did not submit a request to take part in the educational activities there.

2. The Court’s assessment

(a) General principles

30. The Court would begin by emphasising that prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, save for the right to liberty, where lawfully imposed detention expressly falls within the scope of Article 5 of the Convention. For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention; they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life, the right to freedom of expression, the right to practise their religion, the right of effective access to a lawyer or to a court for the purposes of Article 6, the right to respect for correspondence and the right to marry. Any restrictions on these other rights must be justified, although such justification may well be found in the considerations of security, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder, which inevitably flow from the circumstances of imprisonment (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 69, ECHR 2005‑IX, and the cases cited therein; see also Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 99, ECHR 2011). In Hirst (cited above, § 70) the Court stated that “[t]here is no question ... that a prisoner forfeits his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction”. This principle applies a fortiori in respect of a person such as the applicant during the period in question, who has not been convicted and who must, therefore, be presumed innocent (see, for example, Laduna v. Slovakia, no. 31827/02, §§ 64 and 67, ECHR 2011).

31. As regards the right to education, while Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be interpreted as imposing a duty on the Contracting State to set up or subsidise particular educational establishments, any State doing so will be under an obligation to afford effective access to them. Put differently, access to educational institutions existing at a given time is an inherent part of the right set out in the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (see Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” (merits), 23 July 1968, pp. 7-8, §§ 3-4, Series A no. 6; Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria, no. 5335/05, § 49, ECHR 2011; and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, § 137, ECHR 2012). This provision applies to primary, secondary and higher levels of education (see Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, §§ 134 and 136, ECHR 2005-XI).

32. The Court however recognises that, in spite of its importance, the right to education is not absolute, but may be subject to limitations. Provided that there is no injury to the substance of the right, these limitations are permitted by implication since the right of access “by its very nature calls for regulation by the State”. In order to ensure that the restrictions that are imposed do not curtail the right in question to such an extent as to impair its very essence and deprive it of its effectiveness, the Court must satisfy itself that they are foreseeable for those concerned and pursue a legitimate aim. However, unlike the position with respect to Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention, it is not bound by an exhaustive list of “legitimate aims” under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Furthermore, a limitation will be compatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 only if there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved. Although the final decision as to the observance of the Convention’s requirements rests with the Court, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in this sphere (see Catan and Others, cited above, § 140, and the cases cited therein).

33. It is true that education is an activity that is complex to organise and expensive to run, whereas the resources that the authorities can devote to it are necessarily finite. It is also true that in deciding how to regulate access to education, a State must strike a balance between, on the one hand, the educational needs of those under its jurisdiction and, on the other, its limited capacity to accommodate them. However, the Court cannot overlook the fact that, unlike some other public services, education is a right that enjoys direct protection under the Convention. It is also a very particular type of public service, which not only directly benefits those using it but also serves broader societal functions. Indeed, the Court has already had occasion to point out that “[i]n a democratic society, the right to education ... is indispensable to the furtherance of human rights [and] plays ... a fundamental role...” (see, mutatis mutandis, Ponomaryovi, cited above, § 55).

(b) Application of these principles to the facts of the present case

34. While the Court is aware of the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to the effect that educational facilities should be made available to all prisoners (see paragraphs 21-24 above), it reiterates that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 does not place an obligation on Contracting States to organise educational facilities for prisoners where such facilities are not already in place (see Natoli v. Italy, no. 26161/95, Commission decision of 18 May 1998, unreported, and Epistatu v. Romania, no. 29343/10, § 63, 24 September 2013). However, the present applicant’s complaint concerns the refusal to him of access to a pre-existing educational institution, namely the Stara Zagora Prison school. As noted above, the right of access to pre-existing educational institutions falls within the scope of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Any limitation on this right has, therefore, to be foreseeable, to pursue a legitimate aim and to be proportionate to that aim (see paragraph 32 above). Although Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 does not impose a positive obligation to provide education in prison in all circumstances, where such a possibility is available it should not be subject to arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.

35. The Court finds it open to doubt whether the restriction on the applicant was sufficiently foreseeable for the purposes of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant legislative framework provided that convicted prisoners aged 16 or older had a right, on request, to be included in educational programmes and that, in the absence of clear rules to the contrary, the provisions regarding convicted prisoners were to apply equally to remand prisoners. The only express provision relating to the rights of remand prisoners to education was to the effect that the prison authorities should “encourage” the participation of remand prisoners in prison educational programmes (see paragraphs 15-19 above).

36. The lack of clarity in the statutory framework was reflected in the fact that during the domestic proceedings and the proceedings before this Court, varied reasons were given by the national authorities for refusing the applicant’s request to enrol in the school. His request was refused by the Execution of Punishments Directorate of the Ministry of Justice on the ground that “once convicted”, he would be transferred to a prison for “recidivists”, and that in the meantime it would breach the statutory requirement to keep “recidivist” and “non-recidivist” prisoners apart if he were allowed to mix with “non-recidivists” in the prison school (see paragraph 7 above). Subsequently, the prison governor also refused his request on similar grounds (see paragraph 8 above). When the applicant appealed against the decision of the prison authorities to exclude him from the school, the Stara Zagora Regional Court found that he could not be classified as a “recidivist” and ordered the prison governor to admit him to the school. On the further appeal of the prison governor, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment on the ground that the applicant was not entitled to take part in the prison’s educational programme because the right to education was envisaged by the relevant legislation as applying solely in regard of persons deprived of liberty as a result of a final conviction and not in regard of those detained on remand (see paragraph 12 above).

37. In addition, during the proceedings before this Court, the Government relied on three different grounds to justify the applicant’s exclusion from the school. Firstly, they contended that, as a remand prisoner, it was not appropriate that he should attend school with convicted prisoners. Secondly, they argued that, as a remand prisoner serving an indeterminate period of pre-trial detention, it was inappropriate for him to attend the school which was intended for convicted prisoners serving terms of imprisonment of twelve months or more. Thirdly, they reasoned that since the applicant risked being sentenced as a “recidivist”, it would not have been in the interests of the convicted, “non-recidivist” prisoners attending the school for the applicant to have been allowed to attend.

38. For the Court, it is noteworthy that the Government have not supported their arguments with any evidence relating to the conditions applicable in Stara Zagora Prison. The need to protect the applicant by keeping him apart from convicted prisoners, because of his status as a remand prisoner, was not a ground relied on by the prison authorities in rejecting the applicant’s requests. Moreover, it was clear from the applicant’s many requests to be allowed to attend the school that he had no objection to participating in this activity together with convicted prisoners. In the material before the Court, there is no evidence to show that remand prisoners would have come to any harm within the controlled and supervised environment of the classroom or that remand prisoners were detained separately from convicted or “recidivist” prisoners within Stara Zagora Prison and, if so, whether this segregation applied to all aspects of the regime within the prison.

39. The second ground relied on by the Government was the indeterminate nature of detention on remand and the requirement in national law for prisoners to be serving sentences of one year or more before being able to enrol in prison schools. However, the Government have not explained why this was a necessary condition for admission to a prison school. With regard, specifically, to remand prisoners such as the applicant, the Court does not consider that the fact that the ultimate length of their pre‑trial detention is uncertain at the start should be used as a justification for depriving them of access to educational facilities, save perhaps in cases where it is clear for some reason that the detention will be of short duration. Moreover, the Government have not provided the Court with any statistical information as regards the availability of resources at the school such as to justify, for example, a policy of concentrating limited resources on those prisoners serving the longest sentences.

40. Finally, with regard to the last ground relied on by the Government, namely the need to keep the applicant apart from other prisoners because of the risk that he would be sentenced as a “recidivist”, the Court does not consider this was a legitimate reason, since during the time in question he was an unconvicted prisoner and entitled to the presumption of innocence.

41. The Court does not, therefore, consider any of the grounds relied on by the Government to be persuasive, particularly as they are unsupported by any evidence relating to the precise modalities of providing access to education at the Stara Zagora Prison school. On the other side of the balance must be set the applicant’s undoubted interest in completing his secondary education. The value of providing education in prison, both in respect of the individual prisoner and the prison environment and society as a whole, has been recognised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in its Recommendations on education in prison and on the European Prison Rules (see paragraphs 21-24 above).

42. In the instant case the Government provided neither practical reasons, for example based on lack of resources at the school, nor a clear explanation as to the legal grounds for the restriction placed on the applicant. In these circumstances, on the evidence before it, the Court does not find that the refusal to enrol the applicant in the Stara Zagora Prison school was sufficiently foreseeable, nor that it pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate to that aim. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in this case.

B. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention

43. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to the presumption of innocence, contrary to Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, which provides:

“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

1. The parties’ submissions

44. The Government argued that it was relevant that the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence did not take place within the context of criminal proceedings, but instead had a bearing only on the facilities available to the applicant in prison. The objective which underlay the decision of the prison authorities was to keep different categories of prisoner separate from each other. This was a justifiable and legitimate aim, and not arbitrary.

45. The applicant reasoned that a breach of the presumption of innocence could never be justifiable or legitimate. The prison authorities were under an obligation to treat him as innocent until his guilt had been proven according to law. The assumption, by the prison authorities, that the applicant was guilty led to his being denied access to the prison school and also to his being accommodated with “recidivists” in the prison.

2. The Court’s assessment

46. The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 will be violated if a judicial decision or a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before his guilt has been proven according to law. It suffices, in the absence of a formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official in question regards the accused as guilty, while a premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run afoul of the said presumption (see, among many other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, § 56 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, §§ 35‑36; and Nešťák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 88, 27 February 2007). Article 6 § 2 governs criminal proceedings in their entirety, “irrespective of the outcome of the prosecution” (see, among many other authorities, Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27 and 30).

47. In the present case, the applicant’s requests to be enrolled in the Stara Zagora Prison School were rejected by the prison authorities on the ground that “once convicted”, the applicant would be transferred to a prison for “recidivists” and that he could not, therefore, be admitted to the school because this would bring him into contact with “non-recidivists” (see paragraphs 7-8 above).

48. The Court notes the reasoning of the Stara Zagora Regional Court confirming that the applicant could not be considered a “recidivist” as defined by section 158 of the Execution of Punishments Act because, although he had previously received a sentence of imprisonment, the current set of proceedings against him were still pending and he had not been convicted and sentenced a second time. This question was subsequently considered by the Supreme Administrative Court as irrelevant for the purpose of the applicant’s enrolment in the prison school (see paragraphs 9 and 12 above). Against this background, and since the Court has already examined, under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant’s complaint about the prison authorities’ refusal to enrol him in the school on the ground that he was considered a “recidivist”, it does not consider that it would serve any purpose to assess this complaint again under Article 6 § 2.

49. In conclusion, it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

50. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

51. The applicant contended that he had missed three school years (2004/2005, 2005/206 and 2006/2007). This left him at a major disadvantage when he was eventually released from prison, when he was unable to find work because of his lack of qualifications and also found it hard to return to school after so long a period outside education. In addition, the discriminatory attitude of the prison authorities caused him intense frustration, despair and loneliness. He claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of this non-pecuniary damage.

52. The Government contended that the applicant’s claim was exorbitant and unfounded and that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.

53. The Court notes that the present application concerns only the applicant’s complaint that he was refused access to the Stara Zagora prison school during the years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. It accepts that the applicant must have suffered frustration and anxiety as a result of the violation established in this case and it awards him EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, together with any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of this sum.

B. Costs and expenses

54. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,406 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court, consisting of his lawyer’s fees for researching the case and preparing the application and subsequent written observations to the Court.

55. The Government submitted that the work claimed for was not specified in detail and that the amount, therefore, seemed arbitrarily determined and exorbitant. They asked the Court considerably to reduce the amount payable in legal fees.

56. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. The Court does not consider the sum claimed to have been excessive and awards it in full, together with any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in this respect.

C. Default interest

57. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1;

3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention;

4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 1,406 (one thousand, four hundred and six euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 May 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Françoise Elens-Passos Ineta Ziemele
Registrar President

Nema povezane prakse za ovu presudu.

Sažmi komentare

Komentari

Relevantni komentari iz drugih presuda

Član 41 | DIC | Pogosjan i Bagdasarjan protiv Jermenije

Presuda je povezana sa rešenjem Rev 3033/2019 od 05.09.2019. Vrhovnog kasacionog suda, kojim se odbacuje kao nedozvolјena revizija tužene izjavlјena protiv presude Višeg suda u Vranju Gž 3017/18 od 08.02.2019. godine.

Presudom Osnovnog suda u Vranju Prr1. 65/17 od 18.04.2018. godine, stavom prvim izreke, tužena je obavezana da tužiocu naknadi štetu koja je izazvana povredom prava na suđenje u razumnom roku u predmetu Osnovnog suda u Vranju I 1022/09 u iznosu od 69.702,00 dinara, na ime troškova parničnog postupka u iznosu od 27.376,00 dinara i na ime troškova izvršnog postupka u iznosu od 19.600,00 dinara, pripadajućom kamatom. Stavom drugim izreke tužena je obavezana da tužiocu naknadi troškove parničnog postupka u iznosu od 30.000,00 dinara sa zakonskom zateznom kamatom od izvršnosti presude do isplate.
Presudom Višeg suda u Vranju Gž 3017/18 od 08.02.2019. godine, stavom prvim izreke potvrđena je prvostepena presuda u delu u kom je odlučeno o glavnoj stvari, dok je preinačena odluka o troškovima parničnog postupka.

Rešenje je dostupno u javnoj bazi sudske prakse ovde

Član 41 | DIC | Pogosjan i Bagdasarjan protiv Jermenije

Presuda je povezana sa rešenjem Rev 627/2020 od 07.02.2020. Vrhovnog kasacionog suda, kojim se odbacuje kao nedozvolјena revizija predlagača izjavlјena protiv rešenja Višeg suda u Leskovcu Ržg 216/19 od 22.11.2019. godine.

Rešenjem Višeg suda u Leskovcu Ržg 216/19 od 22.11.2019. godine, odbijena je žalba punomoćnika predlagača izjavlјena protiv rešenja Osnovnog suda u Leskovcu R4 I 109/19 od 09.09.2019. godine, kojim je odbijen prigovor predlagača za ubrzanje postupka, zbog povrede prava na suđenje u razumnom roku u predmetu tog suda I 7838/10, kao neosnovan.
Protiv navedenog rešenja, predlagač je blagovremeno izjavila reviziju zbog bitne povrede odredaba parničnog postupka, pogrešnog i nepotpuno utvrđenog činjeničnog stanja i pogrešne primene materijalnog prava, s tim što je predložila da se revizija smatra izuzetno dozvolјenom, u skladu sa odredbom član 404. ZPP.

Rešenje je dostupno u javnoj bazi sudske prakse ovde

Član 41 | DIC | Stojanović protiv Hrvatske

Presuda je povezana sa rešenjem Rev 3050/2019 od 18.09.2019. godine godine, Vrhovnog kasacionog suda, kojim se odbacuje revizija tužene izjavlјena protiv presude Višeg suda u Vranju Gž 1751/18 od 13.11.2018. godine i odbija kao neosnovan zahtev tužioca za naknadu troškova odgovora na reviziju.

Presudom Osnovnog suda u Vranju Prr1 22/17 od 09.02.2018. godine, obavezana je tužena da tužiocu plati na ime naknade imovinske štete izazvane povredom prava na suđenje u razumnom roku u predmetu Opštinskog suda u Vranju
I br. 1012/09 (ranije I. br. 850/05) iznose sa zateznom kamatom od dospeća pa do isplate bliže navedene u izreci pod 1. Tužana je obavezana da tužiocu na ime troškova parničnog postupka plati iznos od 24.000,00 dinara.
Viši sud u Vranju je presudom Gž 1751/18 od 13.11.2018. godine odbio kao neosnovanu žalbu tužene i potvrdio presudu Osnovnog suda u Vranju Prr1 22/17 od 09.02.2018. godine. Odbijen je zahtev tužene za naknadu troškova drugostepenog postupka.

Rešenje je dostupno u javnoj bazi sudske prakse ovde