Anchev v. Bulgaria (communicated case)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 202

December 2016

Anchev v. Bulgaria (communicated case) - 38334/08

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Public exposure of holders of public office as collaborators of communist regime on basis of former security-service records: communicated

Article 13

Effective remedy

Alleged lack of effective remedy for holders of public office exposed as collaborators of communist regime on basis of former security-service records: communicated

By virtue of the Access to and Disclosure of Documents and Exposure of the Affiliation of Bulgarian Citizens to State Security and the Intelligence Services of the Bulgarian People’s Army Act 2006, as amended (“2006 Act”), anyone holding specified “public office” or engaging in a specified “public activity” at any point since 10 November 1989 – the date on which the communist regime in Bulgaria is deemed to have fallen – must be checked for affiliation with the former security services and exposed if found to have been so affiliated. The checks are carried out and exposure is made by a Commission on the basis of information contained in the former security services’ records. The Supreme Administrative Court, which has reviewed more than a hundred cases of exposure, has consistently held that the Commission does not have to check the veracity of the information in the records, but must simply note it and make it public, having no discretion in the matter. The Commission’s task is limited to documentary fact-finding and its decisions are purely declaratory. This is because the 2006 Act does not purport to sanction or lustrate staff members and collaborators of the former security services, but simply to reveal the available information about all publicly active people featuring in the records, with a view to restoring public confidence and preventing blackmail. In a decision of 26 March 2012 the Constitutional Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of section 25(3) of the 2006 Act (which covers persons acceding to “public office” or engaging in “public activity” in the future).

The applicant is a lawyer who has occupied various positions in public office since the early 1990s, including in central government, with the Supreme Bar Council and at a bank. He was the subject of three investigations by the Commission in respect of each of those positions and exposed as a collaborator on the basis of the former security services’ records.

In the Convention proceedings, the applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision to expose him was arbitrary and disproportionate. He also complains under Article 13 of the lack of an effective domestic remedy as, in view of the administrative courts’ case-law, judicial review of the decision to expose him would not enable him to refute the Commission’s finding that he had been a collaborator.

Communicated under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy