FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5452/11
Gergana Georgieva IVANCHEVA
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 9 December 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 2 October 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Gergana Georgieva Ivancheva, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Pazardzhik. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms G. Chernicherska, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms R. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.
In August 2008 the Kyustendil Regional Police Directorate issued an order, prohibiting the applicant from leaving the country and taking her passport away. These measures were taken on the basis of section 75(5) of the Bulgarian Identity Papers Acts 1998, following a request by the regional department of the National Revenue Agency which signaled that the applicant had outstanding tax obligation of over 5,000 Bulgarian levs. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the police order before two levels of court. Her request was dismissed in a final decision by the Supreme Administrative Court which found on 14 June 2010 that the legal conditions for the imposition of the ban had been met.
The application was communicated to the Government on 20 January 2014.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention about the disproportionate restrictions of her freedom of movement as a result of the ban on her leaving the country.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 22 April 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. The Government submitted a declaration on 16 June 2014 and an amended declaration on 10 October 2014 with a view to the Court striking the application out of its list of cases. They acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and offered 1,800 euros in compensation to her.
The declaration also provided that the sum referred to above, which is to cover any and all damage as well as costs and expenses, would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the exchange rate applicable at the time of payment. It would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its 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.
By a letter of 23 July 2014, the applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the monetary compensation offered by the Government was too small.
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 (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 established in a number of cases brought against Bulgaria its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention as a result of bans on leaving the country (see, for example, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 65, 23 May 2006 as regards a travel ban issued in respect of individuals who have outstanding pecuniary obligations towards the State, and also Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, §§ 25‑29, 10 February 2011; Ignatov v. Bulgaria, no. 50/02, § 40, 2 July 2009; Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, 27 November 2012; Sarkizov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 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 travel bans issued on other grounds).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as 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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
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