FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24590/11
Georgi Panayotov MLADENOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 July 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Faris Vehabović,
Yonko Grozev, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 April 2011,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 March 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Georgi Panayotov Mladenov, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Varna.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Raya Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
In December 2007 the Varna Regional Directorate of Internal Affairs issued an order prohibiting the applicant from leaving the country and taking away his passport. The authorities referred to the applicant’s conviction and section 76 (2) of the Bulgarian Identity Papers Acts 1998 (the 1998 Act). The applicant was served with the order in August 2009. He unsuccessfully challenged it before two levels of court. His request was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court which found, in a final decision of 13 December 2010, that the legal conditions for the imposition of the ban had been met.
The applicant complained before the Court about the police ban on his leaving the country and taking away his passport. He relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 22 December 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They submitted such a declaration on 23 March 2015 in which they acknowledged a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention in respect of the applicant and offered to pay to him a compensation of 1,700 euros (EUR). They stated that this sum was to cover any and all damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, and that it would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of the list of cases. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the case.
The applicant did not reply to the Government’s unilateral declaration.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1(c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court has found in a number of cases against Bulgaria a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention on account of the imposition of travel bans as an almost automatic measure in application of the law without any proportionality analysis (see, for example, Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, §§ 25‑29, 10 February 2011; Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 65, 23 May 2006; Ignatov v. Bulgaria, no. 50/02, § 40, 2 July 2009; Stamose v. Bulgaria, 29713/05, 27 November 2012; Sarkizov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 37981/06, §§ 66‑70, 17 April 2012; Dimitar Ivanov v. Bulgaria [Committee], no. 19418/07, §§ 36‑38, 14 February 2012; Milen Kostov v. Bulgaria, no. 40026/07, § 17, 3 September 2013). As regards more specifically the ground for travel ban in the present case, namely a prior criminal conviction of the applicant and his lack of rehabilitation, the Court observes that the matter has been resolved for the future at the national level: section 76(2) of the 1998 Act was repealed by Parliament in October 2009. In its ensuing case-law the Supreme Administrative Court held that the repeal did not automatically invalidate travel bans under section 76 imposed before it had come into force. However, the issue was settled with the adoption of paragraph 5 of the Transitional and Concluding Provisions amending the 1998 Act, which specified that, within three months of its entry into force in April 2010, all measures imposed under section 76(2) would cease to have effect.
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 30 July 2015.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy