CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 juillet 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sA5881AC3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s9191A817 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF56D0168 { font-family:Arial; color:#20335d } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5CCD731E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA9C92997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#333333 } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sB95D6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#c00000 } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s58277305 { width:28.55pt; display:inline-block } .sDC0B6D6A { width:108.08pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s57D3DF84 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF S.E. v. SERBIA (Application no. 61365/16)     JUDGMENT   Art 2 P4 • Freedom to leave a country • Refusal to issue a recognised Syrian refugee a travel document for seven years due to absence of regulations implementing domestic asylum law • Authorities’ systemic failure to act in accordance with domestic law • Very essence of right to leave the country impaired Art 46 • Execution of judgment • Respondent State required to take both individual and general measures to address structural problem • Need for statutory and operational measures to complete legislative framework and implementing regulations providing effective right to leave the country   STRASBOURG 11 July 2023   FINAL   11/10/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of S.E. v. Serbia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , President ,   Tim Eicke,   Faris Vehabović,   Branko Lubarda,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   61365/16) against the Republic of Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Syrian national, Mr S.E. (“the applicant”), on 19 October 2016; the decision of 23 February 2018 to give notice of the application to the Serbian Government (“the Government”); the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section, and the respondent Government’s comments in reply; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court) and to grant confidentiality (Rule 33 of the Rules of the Court); Having deliberated in private on 4 April and 20 June 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns the refusal of the Serbian authorities to issue a travel document to the refugee applicant in Serbia, owing to a failure by the respective Ministers of the Interior to enact, since 2008, any regulations, as subsidiary legislation, governing the content and design of the travel document for refugees, despite being required to do so by the Asylum Act. The case raises issues under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention given that the refusal prevented the applicant from travelling outside Serbia for many years. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1987 and lived in Belgrade from 2014 until 2022. He was represented by the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, a non ‑ governmental organisation based in Belgrade, and its lawyers, Ms   L.   Petrović and Ms. S. Škero Koprivica. 3.     The Government were represented by Ms N. Plavšić, their Agent at the relevant time. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s attempt to obtain a travel document for refugees in Serbia 5 .     The applicant was granted refugee status in Serbia on 28 April 2015 on   the grounds of his political activities in Syria and the general state of insecurity in that country. From then on, he lawfully resided in Serbia and was employed by various IT companies. He also married a Serbian national on 3 June 2018. 6 .     On 25 May 2015 the applicant, represented by the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, applied to the Asylum Office to be issued with a travel document for refugees ( putna isprava za izbeglice ). His Syrian national passport expired sometime during that year. 7 .     On 11 June 2015 the Border Police Unit (a department of the Ministry of the Interior) notified the applicant (no. 03/10 no. 26-1342/14) that he could   not be issued with a travel document for the following reasons: “Following your request of 25 May 2015 to issue a travel document for refugees to the Syrian national S.E.M.M. given that he has obtained refugee status in Serbia, we inform you that we are currently unable to process your request and issue such a document to the above-mentioned individual. Article 58 § 1 (4) of the Asylum Act provides that the Ministry of the Interior shall issue a travel document for refugees to an individual who has been granted asylum, and   [paragraph] 4 [provides] that the form and content of that document will be prescribed   by the Minister. Given that this has not yet been done, i.e. no subsidiary regulations ( podzakonski akti ) governing the content and design of the travel document   for refugees have been enacted, the Asylum Office is unable to issue this type   of document to the above-mentioned individual. Should the formal conditions be fulfilled in the coming period (adoption of the appropriate regulation ( donošenje odgovarajućeg pravilnika )), the Asylum Office will issue a travel document for refugees to the above-mentioned Syrian national without delay.” This “notification” did not contain any instructions on a legal avenue that could be pursued further in this regard. 8.     On 25 August 2015 the applicant’s representative alerted the Minister of the Interior to the fact that individuals who had been granted asylum in Serbia could not be issued with a travel document and asked him to enact regulations enabling the issuance of such a document. The Minister’s office did not respond to this letter. 9.     In the meantime, on 29 June 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional   appeal against the document dated 11 June 2015 (see paragraph   7 above). Relying on Article 39 of the Constitution (see paragraph   14 below), Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 28 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (see paragraph 30 below), he complained that the Minister of the Interior had failed to adopt the relevant regulations and that the Border Police Unit had been unable to issue him with   a travel document which would allow him to travel outside Serbia. He also   requested that the Constitutional Court, inter alia , order the Minister to urgently adopt regulations regarding the content and design of the travel document for refugees. 10.     On 20 June 2016, a panel of three judges of the Constitutional Court refused the applicant’s constitutional appeal, stating in a brief inadmissibility   decision that such an appeal could only be lodged against individual actions or decisions, as prescribed by Article 170 of the Constitution (see paragraph 14 below), and could not be lodged against inaction and the non-adoption of a general legal act, specifically a failure to adopt subsidiary regulations. 11 .     On 29 August 2016 the applicant’s legal representative enquired with   the Ministry of the Interior about its general position on whether the issuance of travel documents by the Syrian authorities would lead to cessation   of the refugee status granted to Syrian nationals in asylum proceedings in Serbia. The Ministry responded that each case had to be assessed individually and that it did not have a general position on the matter. RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS subsequent to notice of the application BEING GIVEN to the Serbian Government 12 .     In their additional submissions of December 2022, the Government informed the Court of the following developments. On 30 May 2022 the applicant obtained a Syrian national passport from the Syrian embassy in Belgrade. He subsequently obtained a working visa from the German embassy in Belgrade for the purpose of moving to Germany to start working as an IT frontend developer for a leading German company. 13 .     On 11 October 2022 the applicant left Serbian territory by crossing the border at Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport and flew to Germany using his new Syrian passport. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LAW The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia ( Ustav Republike Srbije , published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia – OG RS no. 98/06) 14 .     The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows: Article 18 (Direct implementation of guaranteed rights) “Human and minority rights guaranteed by the Constitution shall be implemented directly. The Constitution shall guarantee ... the direct implementation of human and minority   rights secured by the generally accepted rules of international law ... [and] ... ratified international treaties ... Legislation may prescribe the manner of exercising these rights only if explicitly stated in the Constitution or necessary for the enjoyment of a specific right owing to its nature, it being understood that such legislation may not   under any circumstances influence the substance of the guaranteed right in question. Provisions on human and minority rights shall be interpreted ... pursuant to valid international standards on human and minority rights, as well as the practice of international institutions which supervise their implementation.” Article 39 (Freedom of movement)   “Everyone shall have the right to free movement and residence in the Republic of Serbia, as well as the right to leave and return. Freedom of movement and residence, as well as the right to leave the Republic of Serbia, may be restricted by law, if this is necessary for the purposes of conducting criminal proceedings, protection of public order, prevention of the spread of contagious   diseases or defense of the Republic of Serbia. The entry and stay of foreign nationals in the Republic of Serbia shall be regulated by   law ...” Article 57 (Right to asylum) “Any foreign national with reasonable fear of persecution based on his race, gender, language, religion, national origin or association with some other group, or political opinions, shall have the right to asylum in the Republic of Serbia.” Article 170 (Constitutional appeal) “A constitutional appeal may be lodged against individual decisions or actions of State bodies or organisations exercising delegated public powers which violate or deny   human or minority rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, if other legal remedies for their protection have already been exhausted or not prescribed.” The 2008 Asylum Act ( Zakon o azilu , published in OG RS no.   97/2008) 15 .     At the time the applicant’s application for a travel document was assessed, the legal framework which regulated the issuing of travel documents to refugees was established by the 2008 Asylum Act. It was passed on 26 November 2007 and entered into force on 1 April 2008, when Serbia assumed full responsibility for refugee status determination, which had   previously been carried out by UNHCR under its mandate for asylum applicants within the territory of Serbia and their further repatriation. 16 .     Article 58 of the Act provided that a person who had expressed an intention to seek asylum, or filed an asylum application, or who had been granted asylum, had to be issued with one of the following personal documents, as appropriate: (i) a certificate confirming the intention to seek asylum; (ii) an identity card for asylum-seekers; or (iii) an identity card and a travel document for refugees. It further provided, in conjunction with Article 67, that the form and content of these documents were to be prescribed   by the Minister of the Interior within sixty days of the Act coming   into effect. 17 .     Article 62 provided that at the request of anyone over 18 years of age who had been granted refugee status (“right to refuge” ( pravo na utočište )   in   the original text) in the Republic of Serbia, the Asylum Office had to issue a travel document in the prescribed form, valid for a period of two years, in accordance with the law. In exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature, this type of document could be issued to a beneficiary of subsidiary protection not in possession of a national travel document, valid   for up to one year. 18 .     Article 54 § 1 (1) and (2) provided that refugee status would cease, inter alia , if the person in question had voluntarily re-availed him or herself of the protection of his or her country of nationality, or, if having previously lost his or her nationality, had voluntarily reacquired it. The 2018 Asylum and Temporary Protection Act ( Zakon o azilu i privremenoj zaštiti , published in OG RS no. 24/18) 19.     The 2008 Asylum Act was repealed and replaced by the new Asylum   and Temporary Protection Act (“the 2018 Asylum Act”). It was passed on 22   March 2018 and came into force on 4 April 2018, but its implementation was delayed until 4 June 2018. 20 .     Article 87 of the Act corresponds in principle to Article 58 of the 2008   Asylum Act (see paragraph 16 above). Under this Article, in conjunction with Article 101 § 1 in the transitional and final provisions, the Minister of the Interior was required to issue regulations on, inter alia , the format and content of the above-mentioned personal documents within sixty days of the Act coming into effect. 21 .     Article 91 provides that at the request of anyone who has been granted   refugee status in the Republic of Serbia, the Asylum Office must issue a travel document in the prescribed form, valid for five years. Practice of the Ministry of the Interior concerning applications for travel documents by refugees recognised in Serbia 22 .     In the applicant’s submissions to the Court, which were not challenged by the Government, it was asserted that seventy-seven individuals   had been granted asylum in Serbia between 2008 and 2016 and that none had been issued with a travel document for refugees or for persons with subsidiary protection. To the applicant’s knowledge, three refugees had applied for a travel document before him and two after him. None of them had been issued with a decision, but they had received a “notification” identical or very similar in form and content to that which he had received (see paragraph 7 above). General requirements for crossing the Serbian border 23 .     The security and control of State borders, which involves the control of flow of persons, vehicles and goods, are regulated by the State Border Control Act ( Zakon o graničnoj kontroli , published in OG RS no. 24/18, which repealed, in 2018, the previously relevant State Border Protection Act ( Zakon o zaštiti državne granice , published in OG RS nos. 97/08 and 20/15).   A person who intends to cross the State border has a duty, inter alia , to present to the border police a valid travel document or other document entitling him or her to do so, at the identified border crossing points for land,   air, rail or water transport, during the fixed opening hours and in accordance with the relevant international treaties (Articles 12, 15 and 47). The border police carry out systematic checks, on entry and exit, of all passengers who intend to cross the State border, both nationals and aliens, and their travel documents, including whether they fulfil the requirements to enter or exit the Republic of Serbia (Articles 36 and 40 to 42). During the checks, travel documents are systematically stamped on entry and exit, as appropriate, with a stamp specifying the date and place of entry to and exit from the territory or indicating the refusal of entry (Articles 36 and 47). 24 .     Under the 2018 Aliens Act currently in force ( Zakon o strancima , OG   RS nos. 24/18 and 31/19, which repealed the earlier 2008 Aliens Act, OG   RS no. 97/08, which was in force until October 2018), border checks of aliens are carried out on entry and exit, in accordance with the law (Article   11). An alien, that is to say every individual who is not a national of the Republic of Serbia, may enter and stay in Serbia using a valid travel document with a valid visa or permission to stay, which may be required for passport holders of a respective country unless the law or international or bilateral agreements provide otherwise (Article 6). An alien is free to leave the Republic of Serbia, but the border police may exceptionally temporarily prohibit him or her from leaving the country if he or she is not in possession of a valid travel document or other document authorising him or her to cross the State border (Article   17). On naturalisation and travel documents for national and non-nationals 25 .     The Travel Documents Act ( Zakon o putnim ispravama , published in OG RS, nos. 90/07, 116/08, 104/09, 76/10, 62/14 and 81/19) governs travel documents of nationals of the Republic of Serbia for travelling abroad and determines the types of travel documents, eligibility criteria and procedure for their issuing. Article 2 provides that a travel document is a public document used by a national for crossing the State border, for travelling and staying abroad, and returning the country. Article 7 defines travel documents   as: (i) passport ( pasoš ), (ii) diplomatic passport ( diplomatski pasoš ), (iii)   professional passport ( službeni pasoš ), (iv) emergency travel document or laissez-passer ( putni list ), as well as (v) other travel documents issued on the basis of an international agreement. 26 .     In March 2008 the Serbian authorities started issuing new Serbian biometric passports with the highest protection characteristics for nationals. 27 .     In addition to the travel document for persons who have been granted   refugee status and subsidiary protection (see paragraph 21 above), the   Serbian authorities may also issue a travel document to a stateless person,   or an emergency travel document to an alien who does not have a valid travel document, to enable him or her to leave, if (i) his or her Serbian nationality has meanwhile expired and he or she wishes to leave the country;   (ii) if he or she has lost his or her regular travel document or is otherwise without it and his or her country of origin does not have its own diplomatic representation in Serbia or have its interests represented by any other country, or (iii) in the event of forced expulsion (Article 97 of the 2018   Aliens Act) . 28 .     A foreign national who has been married to a national of the Republic   of Serbia for at least three years and who has been granted a permanent residence permit in the country may acquire Serbian nationality by naturalisation if he or she submits a written statement that he or she considers the Republic of Serbia to be his or her own country (Article 17 of the Serbian Nationality Act ( Zakon o državljanstvu Republike Srbije ), published in OG RS nos. 135/04, 90/07 and 24/18). Relevant international text and documents Principles of international refugee law regarding the right to travel documents and the freedom of movement of recognised refugees United Nations Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees   (“the 1951 Refugee Convention”), as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 29 .     Serbia has ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The 1951 Refugee Convention is a status and rights-based treaty. It   provides basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, without prejudice to States granting more favourable treatment, including the provisions of documentation and, in particular, a refugee travel document in passport form. 30 .     The relevant parts of the 1951 Refugee Convention read as follows: Article 1 Article 1 - Definition of the term ‘refugee’ “A.     For the purposes of the present Convention, the term ‘refugee’ shall apply to any   person who: ... (2)   owing to well ‑ founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. Article 25 Administrative assistance 1. When the exercise of a right by a refugee would normally require the assistance of   authorities of a foreign country to whom he cannot have recourse, the Contracting States in whose territory he is residing shall arrange that such assistance be afforded to him by their own authorities or by an international authority. 2. The authority or authorities mentioned in paragraph 1 shall deliver or cause to be delivered under their supervision to refugees such documents or certifications as would   normally be delivered to aliens by or through their national authorities. 3. Documents or certifications so delivered shall stand in the stead of the official instruments delivered to aliens by or through their national authorities, and shall be given credence in the absence of proof to the contrary. ... 5. The provisions of this article shall be without prejudice to articles 27 and 28. Article 27 Identity papers The Contracting States shall issue identity papers to any refugee in their territory who   does not possess a valid travel document. Article 28 Travel documents “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.” 31 .     A refugee travel document (also known as a 1951 Convention travel   document – “CTD”, nowadays “MRCTD” or “machine-readable travel   document”) is a travel document issued to a refugee by the State in which she or he resides, allowing him or her to travel outside that State and return there, or issued by another country if she or he was unable to obtain it from the country of his or her lawful residence. 32 .     Article 28 (see paragraph 30 above) obliges Contracting States to issue travel documents to persons recognised as refugees lawfully staying in their territory, as long as “compelling reasons of national security or public order” do not require otherwise. They are obliged to issue CTDs to refugees in accordance with the rules governing the form, conditions for issue, duration and renewal of CTDs contained in the Schedule to the 1951 Refugee   Convention. The Schedule comprises sixteen paragraphs with more detailed provisions on the responsibility of States in this regard, as well as an   Annex containing the text and format of the Convention travel document. The Schedule provides that a refugee is entitled to apply for a travel document   from the authorities of the country in whose territory he or she has   lawfully taken up residence (Paragraph 11). The Convention established a unified travel document system for refugees, and Contracting States are required to recognise the validity of CTDs issued by another Contracting State in accordance with Article 28 (Paragraph 7 of the Schedule). The Specimen CTD, contained in the Annex, clarifies, under point 1, that it is issued solely with a view to providing the holder with a travel document which can serve in lieu of a national passport. The travaux préparatoires to Article 28 indicate that a refugee is not required to “justify” the proposed travel in order to receive a travel document to which he or she is entitled “for   travel purposes” [1] . Conclusions on International Protection adopted by the Executive Committee of the UNHCR Programme (1975-2017 ) 33.     The Executive Committee, established in 1958 (Resolution 672 (XXV)) by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to have executive and advisory functions, has given guidelines to States on Convention travel documents for refugees in several of its conclusions, in particular nos. 13 (XXIX) 1978, 18 (XXXI) 1980, 49 (XXXVIII) 1987, 112 (LXVII) 2016 and 114 (LXVIII) 2017. 34 .     In its most recent Conclusion 114 (LXVIII) 2017 (Guide for Issuing Machine Readable Convention Travel Documents for Refugees and Stateless   Persons, Jointly published by UNHCR and the ICAO, October 2013, https://www.refworld.org/docid/52b166a34.html), the Committee recognised the importance of travel documents for refugees and stateless persons to facilitate their travel and the requirement for the host States to issue   them, while noting that international standards and specifications in this   domain have undergone significant developments since 1951. The Committee called upon States Parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention to take   all necessary legislative, administrative and technical measures to effect   realisation of the right set out in Article 28 and to amend their relevant national law, if this had not yet been done, to provide refugees lawfully   staying in the country with an individual right to be issued with travel documents in machine-readable form, in conformity with the modern international standards defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Annex 9 to the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). The new ICAO standards became mandatory for all travel documents in 2016. International human rights law Universal Declaration of Human Rights 35 .     Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides as follows: Article 13(2)   “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and practice of the United Nations Human Rights Committee 36 .     Article 12 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Republic of Serbia is a party, and which served as the basis for drafting Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, enshrines the right to be free to leave any country and defines it in the following terms: “... 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. ...” 37 .     The UN Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 27 on Article 12 (Freedom of Movement) of the ICCPR, adopted under Article 40(4) of the ICCPR on 2 November 1999 (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9), provided guidance for the interpretation of Article 12(2). It must be interpreted to include, inter alia , a right to obtain the necessary travel documents. The relevant parts read as follows: “9. In order to enable the individual to enjoy the rights guaranteed by article 12, paragraph 2, obligations are imposed both on the State of residence and on the State of nationality. Since international travel usually requires appropriate documents, in particular a passport, the right to leave a country must include the right to obtain the necessary travel documents. The issuing of passports is normally incumbent on the State   of nationality of the individual. The refusal by a State to issue a passport or prolong its validity for a national residing abroad may deprive this person of the right to leave the country of residence and to travel elsewhere. It is no justification for the State to claim that its national would be able to return to its territory without a passport. ... 11. Article 12, paragraph 3, provides for exceptional circumstances in which rights under paragraphs 1 and 2 may be restricted. This provision authorises the State to restrict these rights only to protect national security, public order ( ordre public ), public   health or morals and the rights and freedoms of others. To be permissible, restrictions must be provided by law, must be necessary in a democratic society for the   protection of these purposes and must be consistent with all other rights recognized   in the Covenant (see paragraph 18 below).” Relevant Council of Europe Material (Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe) 38.     The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, in the   Issue Paper (2013) entitled “The right to leave a country”, concluded as follows: “... all Council of Europe States must examine or re-examine their laws, policies and practices in order to fully align them with the Convention and the Court’s case law, in particular:- the issue of travel documents and the legitimacy of any obstacles to such issue; - the validity of their laws, policies and practices regarding the withdrawal or refusal of travel documents to citizens to ensure that they are fully consistent with the Convention right to leave a country; - those [S]tates which have a record of failure to respect the right to leave must take particular care to ensure that their legislation and its application is brought into line with their human rights obligations ...” European Union Law material 39.     Serbia is not a member State of the European Union. It was granted candidate country status in March 2012 and started accession negotiations in January 2014. 40 .     Article 25(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of   third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international   protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted   (recast) enshrines the obligation of member States to issue “to beneficiaries of refugee status travel documents, in the form set out in the Schedule to the Geneva Convention [2] , for the purpose of travel outside their territory, unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require”. It also provides in Article 25(2) that member States must issue to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection who are unable to obtain a national passport documents which enable them to travel outside their territory, subject to the same restrictions. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCoL NO. 4 TO THE CONVENTION 41.     The applicant complained that the Serbian authorities’ failure to issue   him with a travel document for refugees had prevented him from leaving Serbian territory, travelling abroad and returning there. He relied on Article   2 of Protocol No. 4, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “2.     Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.   3.     No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of   national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 42.     The Government contested the applicant’s arguments, arguing that the   application was incompatible ratione materia e with the provisions of the Convention, that the applicant did not have “victim” status and that he had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies. Admissibility The Government’s preliminary objection concerning compatibility ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention (a)    The parties’ submissions 43 .     The Government firstly invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, given that the applicant’s complaint did not concern the violation of any right enshrined in the Convention or its Protocols. According   to the Government, the reasons behind a refusal to issue a travel document and the manner in which they were manifested determined whether   the issue in question concerned an alleged violation of the right to liberty of movement guaranteed by the Convention or an alleged violation of   the right to a travel document for refugees guaranteed by Article 28 of the 1951   Refugee Convention. Given that the respondent State had not been in a position to issue a travel document to the applicant for technical reasons, without any intention of restricting his liberty of movement, the disputed inaction might have arguably caused only a breach of the right to a travel document under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which was not as such guaranteed by the Convention. 44 .     In addition, in the Government’s view, the right to a travel document for refugees, of which the applicant had complained, was an ancillary right to   the right to asylum. Given that the Court was not competent to review the decisions of State authorities on who would obtain asylum and under which conditions (the Government quoted, in this respect, Vilvarajah and Others v.   the United Kingdom , 30 October 1991, §   102, Series A no.   215, and Ahmed   v. Austria , 17 December 1996, §   38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ VI), it could not be expected to be competent to decide on the right to a travel document for refugees. 45.     The applicant pleaded that he had not requested the Court to interpret   Article 28 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, but had claimed that the   inability of the State authorities to issue him with a travel document and therefore ensure his freedom of movement, namely the right to be free to leave its territory in a lawful manner, clearly fell within the ordinary meaning   of the wording of Article 2 § 2 to Protocol No. 4, which had been breached. Reference to the 1951 Refugee Convention, as well as to his refugee status, had in these specific circumstances only an interpretative effect with regard to the application of that Article. (b)    The Court’s assessment 46.     In so far as the Government pleaded that the inapplicability of Article   2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 on the grounds that the right to political asylum and the right to a travel document for refugees as its ancillary right were not as such guaranteed by either the Convention or its Protocols, the Court emphasises that these rights as such are not the subject matter of the present case. The Serbian authorities already granted refugee status to the applicant and legally recognised the right of a recognised refugee in Serbia to obtain a travel document (see paragraphs 5, 16, 17, 20 and 21 above). 47 .     The Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established case-law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see F.G. v. Sweden [GC],   no. 43611/11, §   111, 23   March 2016). The Court emphasises, however,   that Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 is intended to secure to “everyone”,   regardless of his or her nationality, the freedom to leave any country, including his or her own, and that the corresponding obligations to respect this right are incumbent on the Contracting States (see, with respect to nationals, Rotaru v.   the   Republic of Moldova , no. 26764/12, §   22, 8   December 2020; with respect to aliens, Baumann v. France , no.   33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V (extracts); Miażdżyk v.   Poland , no.   23592/07, §   39, 24   January 2012; and L.B. v.   Lithuania , no.   38121/20, §   59, 14   June 2022; and, with respect to persons who may be considered stateless, Mogoş and Others v.   Romania (dec.), no.   20420/02, 6 May 2004; compare, in the context of Article 3 §   2 of Protocol No. 4, on which only nationals of a respondent State may rely, H.F. and Others v. France [GC], nos.   24384/19 and 44234/20, §§ 244-245, 14   September 2022, with further references). Nevertheless, this right does not confer on any individual an absolute right to leave the territory. It may be restricted and also conditional upon compliance with formal requirements such as being in possession of a valid travel document or a visa (see, mutatis mutandis , Iovita v. Romania (dec.), no.   25698/10, §§   67-77, 7   March 2017, and Mogoş and Others , cited above).   Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 cannot be considered to impose on Contracting States a general obligation to issue aliens residing on their territory with any particular document permitting them to travel abroad (see L.B. v. Lithuania , cited above, §   59). However, the Convention requires that its provisions be interpreted and applied in a manner which renders its rights practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory (ibid., see also H.F. and Others , cited above, §§ 208 and 252, with further references). Hence, the right to leave any country would not be practical and effective, in certain circumstances, without an individual being able to obtain some type of travel document (see L.B. v. Lithuania , cited above, §§   56-62, concerning the refusal of the Lithuanian authorities to reissue an alien’s passport to a Russian national of Chechen origin, still afraid of contacting the Russian authorities, who was a long-term resident and former beneficiary of subsidiary protection in Lithuania). 48.     Furthermore, in the Court’s view, both intentional or unintentional actions or omissions of a public authority liable to infringe that right or to restrict its exercise, and which therefore have the effect of excluding certain persons from the exercise of the right to leave any country, guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, may fall within its scope (see, for example, Peltonen v. Finland (dec.), no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20   February 1995, and Berkovich and Others v.   Russia , nos. 5871/07 and 9   others, § 71, 27 March 2018; compare, in the context of the authorities’ inactivity, Napijalo v. Croatia , no.   66485/01, §§ 62 and   73, 13   November 2003, concerning the confiscation of the applicant’s passport for refusal to pay a customs fine and the lack of co-ordination between different authorities   resulting in a failure to return it for two years). Therefore, the argument that the State’s refusal to issue a travel document to the applicant was not a consequence of restrictive measures with the aim of prohibiting him   from leaving Serbia does not render this Article inapplicable, as long as the consequences produced by the State’s actions or omissions may have precluded him from doing so. 49 .     The Court observes that the applicant’s right to leave Serbian territory   appears to be, in view of the relevant domestic law, connected to the possession of a valid travel document (see paragraphs 23-24 above). There is no indication, nor did the Government claim, that the applicant could have left Serbia or travelled to any other State, including a neighbouring one (see paragraph 23 above), without holding a valid travel document (compare Aristimuño Mendizabal v.   France (dec.), no. 51431/99, 21 June 2005, in which the Court found that the long-term failure to issue a foreign national with a residence permit had not affected her freedom of movement in any concrete terms). The Court notes that the applicant’s national passport expired in 2015 (see paragraph 6 above). Therefore, his right to leave Serbia could not be practical and effective without him having the possibility of obtaining a travel document (see, mutatis mutandis , L.B. v.   Lithuania , cited above, § 60). Despite the applicant’s statutory entitlement, the Serbian authorities rejected his request for a travel document for refugees because the relevant implementing regulations had not yet been enacted (see paragraph 7 above). For the purposes of the application of Article 2