Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)155[1]
Ivanova contre Bulgarie
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête no 52435/99, arrêt du 12 avril 2007, définitif le 12 juillet 2007)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées « la Convention » et « la Cour »),
Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2012)919E)[2] ;
Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire :
- de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in intergrum ; et
- de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;
Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnés ;
Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2012)919E) ;
S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46§1 ont été adoptées ;
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
Action report
Case of Ivanova v. Bulgaria, application no. 52435/99,
judgment of 12 April 2007, final on 12 July 2007
The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of religion on account of her dismissal in December 1995 from a state-owned school at which her functions did not include teaching (violation of Article 9). The European Court considered that whilst her employment had been ended, on the face of it, in conformity with the law, by modifying the qualifications attached to the post, the dismissal had nonetheless been motivated by religious considerations, being part of a campaign against the activities of a religious organisation, “Word of Life”, of which the applicant was an adherent.
INDIVIDUAL MEASURES
- The European Court awarded pecuniary damage to the applicant, granting in totality her claim to be compensated for having remained without work for a certain period of time. It also made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Those sums were paid by the Government on 11 October 2007.
- At the time of entry into force of the European Court’s judgment, it was possible for the applicant to seek the re-opening of the civil proceedings for unfair dismissal which she had brought (Article 231 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in force until 1 March 2008). She did not avail herself of that possibility.
The Government considers that no further individual measures are necessary in the case to erase the consequences of the violation.
GENERAL MEASURES
- Freedom of religion in Bulgaria is guaranteed by the Constitution of 1991 (Articles 13 and 37) and the Religious Denominations Act of 2002. Protection against discrimination is provided for by the Constitution (Articles 6 and 38) and in particular by the Protection Against Discrimination Act of 2003, which, in the context of the exercise of the right to labour, expressly forbids any dismissal based on religious convictions (sections 4 and 21). The Protection Against Discrimination Act alleviates the burden of proof for plaintiffs wishing to show discrimination. It creates a Commission for Protection Against Discrimination, which examines individual complaints. Anyone alleging discrimination may also directly address the courts. There exists already abundant practice of the courts in the application of the Act. In addition, the Labour Code (Article 8 § 3) prohibits discrimination in the exercise of labour rights based, inter alia, on religion.
- The Court’s judgment in the present case has been translated into Bulgarian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice . It has also been disseminated amongst the relevant State bodies.
The Government is of the view that the legislation cited above, most notably the Protection Against Discrimination Act of 2003, which was adopted and entered into force after the events in the case at hand took place, affords sufficient protection of the right not to be dismissed on the basis of one’s religious convictions and thus makes it unlikely that violations similar to the one in Mrs Ivanova’s case will occur in the future. Although the present case appears to be an isolated one, where the courts examining Mrs Ivanova’s claim for unfair dismissal failed to duly take into account her allegations of discrimination based on her religion, it was considered important to publish and disseminate the Court’s judgment, which could help preventing the national courts’ taking a similar approach in the future. Lastly, the Government notes that the negative attitude towards new “sects”, prevalent in Bulgaria in the 1990s, has since then significantly attenuated.
The Government is thus of the view that no further general measures are necessary in the case.
[1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2] En anglais uniquement
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy