CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 30 September 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 27677/21 A.M. against Bulgaria and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 11 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern decisions of the Bulgarian national security services prohibiting the three applicants – British nationals of Pakistani origin   – from entering and residing in Bulgaria, where they were pursuing their higher education in medicine. The decisions, taken at the end of 2019 and upheld in final judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court between October 2020 and February 2021, relied on national security grounds. In particular, the applicants and other Muslim students had set up an association, which according to the services had represented an Islamist organisation with “military structures”. As far as can be understood from the case files (some of the documents have been classified and are not available), such a conclusion was based on the fact that during a public lecture in front of Muslim students in April 2018 another British citizen had spoken about “800 warriors”; according to the applicants the expression had been taken out of context and interpreted in an Islamophobic manner. It was also noted by the domestic authorities that after 2015 the number of students in the Plovdiv Medical University from “high-risk countries” such as Pakistan, Iraq and Palestine had increased, that the applicants’ association had been seeking to impose “non-traditional forms of Islam” among local Muslims, that it had been looking for its own premises for daily prayers, and that it had financed the construction of a mosque in a poor Muslim-populated neighbourhood. A Bulgarian mufti testified before the courts that the practices followed by the applicants and their association had been “normal”, while the applicants stated that all of the association’s activities had been known and approved by the Plovdiv mufti’s office. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that they were unable to finish their studies in Bulgaria and obtain diplomas, and point out that they had otherwise been sufficiently settled in that country so as to have “private life” there. They also complain under Article 9 of the Convention of an interference with their right to practice their religion. They dispute the Bulgarian authorities’ claims that they had represented a threat to national security and that they had been members of an Islamist organisation. Lastly, the applicants complain under Article 13 and Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 8 and 9 that they did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy, and that the measures against them were discriminatory based on their religion and ethnic origin. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? In particular, has it been sufficiently established that the applicants posed a threat to national security? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article   9 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   9 §   2? In particular, were the measures against the applicants related to the exercise of their right to freedom of religion, and were they designed to repress that right (see, mutatis mutandis , Nolan and K. v. Russia , no. 2512/04, 12 February 2009)? 3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 8 and 9, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 4.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of their religion and ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?         APPENDIX   List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 27677/21 A.M. v. Bulgaria 25/05/2021 A.M. 1996 London British Valeria ILAREVA 2. 31388/21 Z.T. v. Bulgaria 10/06/2021 Z.T. 1998 Walsall British Valeria ILAREVA 3. 39820/21 A.P. v. Bulgaria 03/08/2021 A.P. 1997 Walsall British Valeria ILAREVA