FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21341/07
Semoun Qasem Mohammad ABULAIL and Tsveta Ivanova LUDNEVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 November 2014 as a Chamber composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Paul Mahoney,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 May 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The first applicant, Mr Semoun Qasem Mohammad Abulail, is a Jordanian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Al Ramtha in Jordan. The second applicant, Ms Tsveta Ivanova Ludneva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. The two applicants were represented by Ms N. Markova, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv.
2. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Stancheva-Chinova, from the Ministry of Justice.
A. The circumstances of the case
1. Background
3. In 2000 the first applicant set up a limited liability company in Bulgaria. The second applicant was employed by the company. Between 2000 and 2003 the first applicant visited Bulgaria on several occasions. On 2 July 2003 the two applicants married. After that the first applicant started living permanently in Bulgaria and in 2005 was granted a permanent residence permit.
2. The order for the first applicant’s expulsion
4. On 25 September 2006 the Director of the National Security Service (“the NSS”), at the time a department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, issued an order revoking the first applicant’s residence permit, ordering his expulsion and barring him from entering Bulgaria for ten years. The order relied on sections 42 and 44(1) of the Aliens Act of 1998. It indicated that it was based on the reasons set out in a classified document named “proposal” (“предложение”) and bearing the number RB2020001-001-03/Пд/C‑3533/25.09.2006, and on the fact that the first applicant represented a threat to national security. It was also indicated that the order was subject to immediate execution.
5. After communication of the present application, the Government provided the Court with an excerpt from proposal RB2020001-001-03/Пд/C‑3533/25.09.2006, which had been declassified on 24 August 2012. The excerpt, in which the names of the other persons are concealed, was shown to the first applicant in the proceedings concerning the judicial review of the order of 25 September 2006 (see below), and was included in the case file. The document refers to “operational intelligence data” showing that the first applicant was involved in drug trafficking. In particular, it is alleged that he was in contact with persons known to be involved in such activities, and used his company’s trucks to transport drugs to Russia and Turkey. It is also stated that in April 2005 a truck belonging to the first applicant’s company was caught in the area of Dobrich carrying 200 kg of amphetamines.
6. The Government submitted an excerpt from another document entitled “information document” (“справка”) bearing the number RB2020001-001-03/Пд/C‑3532/25.09.2006, also declassified on 24 August 2012, which contained the same statements and alleged, in addition, that the first applicant was involved in “unlawful drug trafficking, under the control of the Syrian secret services, who provide logistical support to the terrorist organisation Hezbollah”. This excerpt was also presented to the first applicant and included in the case file in the judicial-review proceedings he instigated (see below).
7. The first applicant was expelled to Jordan on 26 January 2007.
3. The legal challenges to the first applicant’s expulsion
8. On 19 October 2006 the first applicant filed an administrative appeal against the order of 25 September 2006. On 24 October 2006 the Minister of Internal Affairs dismissed his appeal, finding that the proposal and the information document drawn up by the NSS contained data leading to the conclusion that the first applicant posed a threat to national security. The Minister went on to say that there had been sufficient grounds to justify the order; by law, when issuing such orders the authorities had to refrain from setting out in them the facts justifying their conclusion that the respective person represented a national security risk.
9. In November 2006 the first applicant sought judicial review of the expulsion order by the Sofia City Court. He argued that it was unclear on what factual circumstances the expulsion order had been based and that he had not been given an opportunity “to defend himself against arbitrary action”. The first applicant also sought a stay of the enforcement of the expulsion order pending the outcome of the proceedings.
10. The Sofia City Court accepted the application for judicial review for examination. In decisions issued on 7 December 2006 and 8 February 2007 it refused to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order.
11. Following amendments to the Aliens Act 1998 that made expulsion orders subject to review by the Supreme Administrative Court (“the SAC”), the case was transferred to that court on an unspecified date. In the proceedings before it, the first applicant had legal representation.
12. In his submissions to the SAC the first applicant disputed the allegations ‒ made in the proposal and the information document referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 above ‒ that he had been involved in drug trafficking. He also disputed the claim that in 2005 in the region of Dobrich the authorities had discovered drugs in a truck belonging to his company. He pointed out that at the time in question he had not sent trucks into that area and argued that if the allegation were true he would have been under investigation. He presented additional documents issued by the prosecution authorities, stating that he had no criminal convictions and that there were no ongoing investigations concerning him in the regions of Dobrich or Plovdiv. The first applicant also contested the allegations that he had worked for the Syrian secret services and Hezbollah, pointing out that he was a Jordanian and a Sunnite, and that Hezbollah was a Shia militant group. He stated that his expulsion had disrupted his commercial activities in Bulgaria. Lastly, he said the following:
“[I]t should be noted that my personal rights have been unlawfully encroached upon, which is unjustified. My family has been separated for more than a year.”
13. In a judgment of 9 January 2008, which was final, the SAC found that the order of 25 September 2006 was lawful and disallowed the first applicant’s application for judicial review. Its decisive reasoning was as follows:
“The disputed order was made by a competent body, no material breaches of the rules of administrative procedure have been committed, and it does not contradict the applicable law and its intent. The argument raised in the application for judicial review that the disputed administrative act did not contain any reasoning and was not based on the law is ill-founded. The disputed order refers to the legal provisions it is based on and ‒ given that it concerns compulsory measures under section 46(2) of the [Aliens Act] ‒ pursuant to section 46(3) of the same Act it should not disclose the factual grounds justifying it. Moreover, those factual grounds are set out in detail in [proposal RB2020001-001-03/Пд/C‑3533/25.09.2006] and are indicated in the disputed order as the factual basis, as can be seen from the [excerpt from the document] included in the case file. On the basis of the information contained in the proposal, the administrative body has reached a reasoned conclusion that the [applicant’s] presence in the country amounts to a serious threat to national security, and that the preconditions have been satisfied for the imposition of the compulsory measure ‘expulsion’ [...], together with the compulsory measures ‘revocation of residence permit’ and ‘bar on entering the [Republic of Bulgaria]’ which accompany it on a mandatory basis. [...] As can be seen from the proposal and the information document [RB2020001-001-03/Пд/C‑3532/25.09.2006], an excerpt of which [...] has also been included in the case file, the operational investigative activities carried out have established the grounds for imposing the compulsory measure ‘extradition’, together with the remaining [compulsory measures taken]. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the excerpts presented in the case ‒ prepared in accordance with the [law on classified information] ‒ are official attestation documents, which have binding force for the court as regards the contents of the proposal and the information document, on the basis of which ‒ in accordance with the applicable substantive rules ‒ the disputed order has been made.”
4. The first applicant’s detention and his beating
14. With the order of 25 September 2006 the Director of the NSS ordered the first applicant’s detention pending expulsion. On 26 September 2006 the Director of the Plovdiv Regional Police Directorate, relying on section 44(6) and (8) of the Aliens Act, also ordered his detention pending enforcement of the expulsion order. On the same day the first applicant was detained and placed in the Centre for Interim Detention of Aliens (“the CIDA”) in Busmantsi, where he remained until his expulsion on 26 January 2007.
15. The order of 26 September 2006 stated that it was subject to judicial review. It does not appear that the first applicant sought such review.
16. Around 6 p.m. on 30 December 2006 the first applicant was beaten by a co‑detainee, an Iraqi national, with whom he had been accommodated in the same room in the CIDA. Immediately after the accident the Iraqi was placed in another room.
17. In the early hours of 31 December 2006 the first applicant was transferred to a hospital where it was established that he had a broken nose. On 3 January 2007 he underwent surgery. He was discharged from hospital on 8 January 2007.
18. On 19 January 2007 the first applicant complained to the prosecution authorities and requested them to investigate his beating. On 1 February 2007 a prosecutor from the Sofia District Public Prosecutor’s Office instructed the police to carry out a check-up. After this had been done, in a decision of 27 March 2007 the prosecutor found that the injury suffered by the applicant was considered by the Criminal Code to be one of a minor severity, which meant that its infliction was a privately prosecutable offence. Thus, the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings.
19. The above decision, which was served on the first applicant’s lawyer, was appealable to a higher-ranking prosecutor. The first applicant did not appeal. Nor did he lodge a private criminal complaint against his attacker, who was likewise expelled from Bulgaria on an unspecified date.
B. Relevant domestic law
20. The relevant domestic law concerning the expulsion of aliens on grounds of national security, as in force at the time, has been set out in detail in the Court’s judgments in the cases of C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 1365/07, §§ 18-26, 24 April 2008) and Raza v. Bulgaria (no. 31465/08, §§ 30‑35, 11 February 2010).
COMPLAINTS
21. In the application form submitted by the first applicant on 12 May 2007, he complained that the expulsion order of 25 September 2006 had not been justified and that he had not been given an opportunity to refute the allegations on which the expulsion was based. He also complained of the fact that the expulsion had been carried out before the legal challenge against it had been examined, and that as a result of that expulsion he had suffered “financial, family, moral and health damages”. He stated that he complained under Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5, Article 6 § 1, and Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. Stating that he had been beaten by another inmate of the CIDA, he also complained under Article 3. The first applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been unable to wind up his company before being removed from Bulgaria, and that his business had been adversely affected by his detention and expulsion.
22. The first applicant reiterated these complaints in a new application form submitted on 11 December 2007.
23. In a letter of 26 March 2008 the second applicant joined her husband’s application. She argued that in the judicial-review proceedings before the SAC, the first applicant had not been given an opportunity to refute the NSS’s allegations against him and stated that those allegations were untrue. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, she complained of her separation from her husband, arguing that it could not be justified with a view to any public interest. She also complained under Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Preliminary issue
24. The Government considered that the authority form submitted by the first applicant authorising Ms N. Markova to represent him before the Court was invalid. They pointed out that the document bore the date 13 September 2012 and indicated as a place of signature Plovdiv, whereas it was impossible that the first applicant could have been in the city on this date, given the ten-year ban on entering Bulgaria imposed on him in 2006. The applicants did not comment on this issue.
25. The Court notes that the Government have not disputed the authenticity of the first applicant’s signature on the authority form ‒ which the Court finds similar to his signature on the application form ‒ nor his intention to give authorisation to Ms Markova. Whilst it is true that the first applicant could not have signed the authority form in Plovdiv as he could not have been in that city in September 2012, the Court does not consider that the indication of a wrong place should cast doubt on the signature’s validity.
26. Consequently, the Court finds no grounds for accepting that the first applicant was not represented by Ms N. Markova, and therefore discontinuing the examination of the application in respect of him, under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Lotarev v. Ukraine, no. 29447/04, §§ 66-70, 8 April 2010; contrast Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006, and Akulov v. Russia (dec.), no. 74688/01, 8 March 2007).
B. Alleged violations of Article 3 of the Convention
27. The first applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been beaten by another individual while detained in the CIDA and that the authorities had failed to investigate the accident. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
1. Arguments of the parties
28. The Government argued that the authorities had taken all necessary measures to protect the first applicant from violence while he had been in the CIDA. They submitted the Centre’s internal rules, which prohibited any recourse to violence by the inmates and provided for disciplinary measures in cases of breaches. They pointed out that such a measure had been taken against the person who had hit the first applicant, in that he had been put into isolation in another room. After the first applicant’s discharge from hospital there had been no further incidents between the two of them. The Government pointed out in addition that the applicant had been transferred to a hospital promptly and that he had received adequate medical care.
29. The Government considered, in addition, that the prosecution authorities had investigated the incident thoroughly. They had concluded that the case had concerned a privately prosecutable offence and had informed the first applicant’s representative thereof. The first applicant had chosen not to contest the finding that the offence was privately prosecutable or alternatively to lodge a private criminal complaint. Accordingly, the applicant had failed to make use of an available mechanism to seek accountability for his beating.
30. The first applicant contested the Government’s arguments. He asserted that the staff of the CIDA had failed to prevent the attack against him. He submitted copies of newspaper articles saying that there had been cases of violence in the CIDA. He argued that he had not been transferred to the hospital quickly enough.
31. Moreover, the first applicant contended that the prosecution authorities had not properly investigated the incident, in particular because they had failed to commission a medical report to assess the gravity of his injury, had not interviewed either him or the second applicant, and had commenced their investigation only after he had been expelled from the country. In addition, the first applicant argued that he was unable to lodge and pursue a private criminal complaint as both he and his attacker had been expelled and no longer resided in Bulgaria.
2. The Court’s assessment
32. The Court observes that on 30 December 2006 the first applicant was beaten by another resident of the CIDA, who broke his nose. This could, in principle, raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention.
33. The first applicant alleged that the CIDA staff had not done enough to prevent his beating. However, he did not provide any further details regarding the circumstances of the attack and the actions of the staff that would enable the Court to assess this claim. On the basis of the information provided by the parties, the Court cannot conclude that the staff made any errors or failed to take measures they could have taken to protect the first applicant.
34. The Court finds, next, that the authorities’ reaction following the attack appears to have been adequate. The first applicant was taken to a hospital some hours after his beating (see paragraph 17 above) and it does not appear that the staff’s actions were belated or led to deterioration in his state of health. Moreover, the first applicant has not argued that he did not receive adequate medical care.
35. As pointed out by the Government (see paragraph 28 above), it appears that no further incidents between the first applicant and his attacker were reported following his discharge from hospital.
36. Accordingly, the Court does not consider that the authorities failed in their positive obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to protect the applicant’s physical integrity and health.
37. As to the investigation of the incident, the Court observes that the first applicant complained to the prosecution authorities on 19 January 2007 (see paragraph 18 above). After the initial check-up, a prosecutor from the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office concluded that the case concerned a privately prosecutable offence. The first applicant appears to disagree with this conclusion (see paragraph 31 above) but has not explained why he considered that the injury he suffered amounted to more than bodily harm of minor severity. Moreover, the first applicant had the right to lodge an appeal against the prosecution’s decision, if necessary through the representation of his lawyer, and to raise his arguments at domestic level. He failed to do so (see paragraph 19 above). Alternatively, had the first applicant accepted the prosecutor’s classification of the injury as one of minor severity, he would have had the right to lodge a private criminal complaint against his attacker. Indeed, even if in the particular circumstances in question his attacker’s absence from Bulgaria might have rendered pursuing private criminal proceedings more difficult ‒ as argued by the applicant ‒ this did not amount to a deficiency attributable to the State rendering the available avenue of redress ineffective.
38. It thus follows that there was no failure on the part of the authorities to meet their procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.
39. In view of the above, the first applicant’s complaints under this provision are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
C. Alleged violations of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention
40. These provisions read as follows:
Article 8
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
1. Arguments of the parties
41. The Government contested the existence of a genuine family life between the applicants. They submitted information provided by the customs authorities showing that, before his marriage with the second applicant in 2003, the first applicant had spent only a few weeks in Bulgaria. After the marriage he had continued to travel abroad on numerous occasions. According to the Government’s calculations, the first applicant had spent two years and seven months in Bulgaria, four months of which had been spent in detention in the CIDA. Moreover, the Government stated that the first applicant barely spoke Bulgarian and argued that he had no established connections with Bulgaria. On the other hand, he had maintained his connections with his country of origin, which he had visited on several occasions. The Government pointed out in addition that the applicants did not have any children.
42. In any event, the Government considered that the first applicant’s expulsion and the other measures against him amounted to a proportionate interference with the two applicants’ right to family life, and that the measures were in the public interest in view of the gravity of the first applicant’s alleged unlawful activities.
43. The Government argued that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies at their disposal, because they had been able to challenge the order of 25 September 2006 before both the Minister of Internal Affairs and the SAC. They contended, in particular, that the SAC had carried out a meaningful judicial review, taking into account all relevant evidence.
44. The applicants disputed the Government’s arguments. They argued that prior to the first applicant’s expulsion they had had a genuine family life together, especially in view of the fact that they had shared a common dwelling. The first applicant spoke Bulgarian well and had used that language in his work on a daily basis.
45. The applicants also argued that the first applicant’s expulsion from Bulgaria, the revocation of his residence permit and the ban on his re‑entering Bulgaria failed to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, the measures could not be considered “in accordance with the law” since domestic legislation did not provide sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness.
46. Lastly, as regards the judicial review of the order of 25 September 2006, the applicants pointed out that the SAC had failed to verify the allegations made by the NSS.
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) The complaints of the second applicant
47. The Court notes at the outset that the present application was lodged by the first applicant on 12 May 2007, but the second applicant only joined it on 26 March 2008, complaining of an interference with her and her husband’s family life (see paragraphs 21-23 above). The Court observes in addition that the applicants’ family life was disrupted by the first applicant’s expulsion from Bulgaria, which was carried out on 26 January 2007 (see paragraph 7 above). The expulsion was an instantaneous act, which did not give rise to a continuing situation. A question may therefore arise as to whether the second applicant’s complaints were raised within the six-month time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The Court must examine compliance with the six-month rule even in the absence of any objection by the Government to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and Pashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 20875/07, § 42, 5 February 2013).
48. As already mentioned, the first applicant’s expulsion was carried out on 26 January 2007. The judicial-review proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the expulsion order ended on 9 January 2008 (see paragraph 13 above). However, the second applicant was not a party to these proceedings. Moreover, as will be discussed below (see paragraphs 51-52 and 57), the SAC did not deal with any possible interference with the applicants’ right to family life, as this issue had not been raised before it. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that those proceedings were not determinative of the second’s applicant’s right to family life and the final judgment given in them did not ‒ in respect of her ‒ constitute a “final decision” within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Thus, the six-month time-limit in her case started running on 26 January 2007 and not on 9 January 2008. Her complaints were raised on 26 March 2008 (see paragraph 23 above).
49. It follows that the second applicant’s complaints have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
(b) The complaints of the first applicant
50. The Government argued that the first applicant’s removal from Bulgaria had not interfered with his right to family life, protected by Article 8 of the Convention, as they contested the existence of a genuine family life between the two applicants (see paragraph 41 above). The Court, too, is of the view that there can be doubts in that regard, in view of the first applicant’s relatively short stay in Bulgaria, two years and seven months in total, for four months of which he was detained in the CIDA, and of the fact that the first applicant’s connections with Bulgaria appear to have been to a large extent based on his business activities there (compare Kostadinovič v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 4512/02, § 37, 4 January 2012). Nevertheless, for the purposes of the present analysis the Court is prepared to accept that the two applicants had a family life together and that the first applicant’s expulsion from Bulgaria amounted to an interference with his right to family life (see I.R. and G.T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 14876/12 and 63339/12, § 56, 28 January 2014).
51. As concerns Article 8 of the Convention, the first applicant argued that he had been afforded no guarantees against arbitrariness during the domestic proceedings concerning his expulsion (see paragraph 45 above). However, the Court notes that the applicant failed to raise at the domestic level, even in substance, his complaint under Article 8, namely that the expulsion would interfere with his right to respect for his family life. In particular, he failed to address the matter in his initial application for judicial review (see paragraph 9 above) and mentioned it very briefly in the written observations he submitted to the SAC, where he said merely that his family had been “separated for more than a year”. The bulk of his arguments in the domestic proceedings were concerned with the activities of his company and the allegations against him of drug trafficking (see paragraph 12 above).
52. In previous cases against Bulgaria concerning expulsion of aliens on national security grounds, the Court has found violations of Article 8 of the Convention, noting the lack of sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness, which entailed that the interference with the applicants’ right to family life was not “in accordance with the law” (see, for example, C.G. and Others and Raza, cited above; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, 20 June 2002; Musa and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 61259/00, 11 January 2007; Kaushal and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 1537/08, 2 September 2010; M. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 41416/08, 26 July 2011; and Madah and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 45237/08, 10 May 2012). However, the Court cannot reach a conclusion that the domestic procedure did not offer such guarantees in the present case, because, as already mentioned, the issue of the first applicant’s right to family life was not raised before the domestic courts and was never examined by them.
53. It follows that the complaint under Article 8 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
54. As concerns the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court observes, in the first place, that the applicant was authorized to contest the expulsion order before the Minister of Internal Affairs (see paragraph 8 above). It observes also that at the time when the first applicant’s expulsion was ordered, domestic law did not provide for the possibility of seeking judicial review (see C.G. and Others, cited above, § 22), but nevertheless the Sofia City Court, where the case was initially heard, accepted the applicant’s application for judicial review for examination (see paragraph 10 above; contrast Bashir and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 65028/01, § 15, 14 June 2007, and Baltaji v. Bulgaria, no. 12919/04, §§ 14-16, 12 July 2011, where the applications for judicial review were dismissed as inadmissible). After legislative amendments allowing judicial review of such measures, the first applicant’s case was transferred to the SAC.
55. The Court further observes that, unlike other cases concerning the expulsion of aliens from Bulgaria on national security grounds dating from the same period (see, for example, Kaushal and Others, cited above, §§ 11‑15 and 30-31), the SAC had been informed of the grounds justifying the decision to expel the first applicant since it had been presented with excerpts of the documents on which that decision was based, namely the proposal RB2020001-001-03/Пд/C‑3533/25.09.2006 and the information document RB2020001-001-03/Пд/C‑3532/25.09.2006 (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above). These documents referred to specific data showing that the first applicant was suspected of being involved in drug trafficking controlled by foreign secret services. Moreover, it has not been disputed that the SAC was competent to examine the assertion that the first applicant represented a threat to national security and ‒ had it found it groundless ‒ would have been competent to quash the expulsion order of 25 September 2006.
56. The Court furthermore notes that the first applicant was also presented with excerpts of the documents mentioned above and was aware of the specific facts alleged on him. Moreover, he was assisted by a lawyer (see paragraph 11 above) and was able to present his arguments. Even though he benefitted from adversarial proceedings only to a certain degree, due to security measures such as the concealment of the names of the other persons in the documents presented, aimed at protecting the confidentiality of police sources, the Court reiterates that, under Article 13 of the Convention, the context in which an alleged violation occurs might entail inherent limitations with respect to the conceivable remedy (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 151). It does not consider the limitations in the present case unjustified.
57. In addition, as already discussed, in the domestic proceedings the first applicant failed to raise the argument that his expulsion had interfered with his right to respect for his family life. It has not been disputed that the SAC was competent to examine the question; it did so, for example, when examining the applicants’ grievances at the domestic level in a similar case (see Kaushal and Others v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 16).
58. In view of the above, the Court cannot conclude that the first applicant did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his grievances under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.
59. It follows that his complaint under Article 13 is manifestly ill‑founded as well and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
D. Remaining complaints
60. Lastly, the first applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 of the Convention regarding his detention pending expulsion, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see paragraph 21 above).
61. The Court has examined these complaints. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
62. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosIneta Ziemele
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy