Communicated on 23 February 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 61365/16
Mohammad Mawaheb SERAJ EDDIN
against Serbia
lodged on 19 October 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Mohammad Mawaheb Seraj Eddin, is a Syrian national, who was born in 1987 and lives in Novi Sad. He is represented before the Court by the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, a non‑governmental organisation based in Belgrade.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant was granted asylum in Serbia on 28 April 2015.
4. On 25 May 2015 the applicant applied to the Asylum Office to be issued with a travel document (putna isprava). His Syrian national passport expired in 2015.
5. On 11 June 2015 the Border Police Unit informed the applicant that he could not be issued with a travel document because the competent Minister of the Interior had not yet enacted a by-law governing the content and the design of this kind of travel documents. This letter did not contain any instruction on any legal remedy that can be used against it.
6. On 25 August 2015 the applicant’s representative alerted the Minister of the Interior to the fact that individual with granted asylum in Serbia could not be issued with travel documents and asked him to enact the by-law facilitating the issuance of such document. It would appear that the Minister office has not responded to this letter.
7. In the meantime, on 29 June 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal in respect of the document of 11 June 2015. On 20 June 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed his appeal on the ground that a constitutional appeal cannot be lodged against the lack of acting and non-adoption of a general legal act, namely failure to adopt a bylaw, but only against the individual acts or decisions.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
8. The issuing of travel documents is regulated by the Asylum Act (Zakon o azilu, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia - OGRS, no. 97/2008). Article 62 states that at the request of a person over 18 years of age who has been granted the right to refuge in the Republic of Serbia, the Asylum Office shall issue a travel document on a prescribed form, valid for a period of 2 years, in accordance with the law. Under Article 67 of this Act, the Minister in charge of internal affairs shall issue regulations, inter alia, on the content and format of the personal documents forms, including travel documents, within 60 days of the coming into effect of this Act.
9. It would appear that 77 individuals have been granted asylum in Serbia between 2008 and 2016 and none has been issued with a travel document for refugees or person with subsidiary protection.
C. Relevant international text and documents
10. Serbia has ratified the 1951 Refugees Convention and the 1967 Protocol thereto. Article 28 of the Convention on travel documents read as follows.
“1. The Contracting States shall issue to refugees lawfully staying in their territory travel documents for the purpose of travel outside their territory unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require, and the provisions of the Schedule to this Convention shall apply with respect to such documents. The Contracting States may issue such a travel document to any other refugee in their territory; they shall in particular give sympathetic consideration to the issue of such a travel document to refugees in their territory who are unable to obtain a travel document from the country of their lawful residence.
2. Travel documents issued to refugees under previous international agreements by parties thereto shall be recognized and treated by the Contracting States in the same way as if they had been issued pursuant to this Article.”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that the Serbian authorities unlawfully restricted his right to liberty of movement by refusing to issue him a travel documents.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy