CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } Published on 6 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 38707/23 Tihomir Plamenov DIMITROV against Bulgaria lodged on 20 October 2023 communicated on 10 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns complaints under Article 8, under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 13 in conjunction with these two provisions of the Convention, in essence about the refusal of the authorities to issue the applicant, a homeless person, with a national identification document because he did not have a permanent address. The applicant complains that the continued refusal breached his right to protection of his private life, since he was prevented from exercising a number of other rights, such as: to work, as he could not obtain lawful employment, despite some specific offers that he had obtained; to receive life-saving treatment in a pharmacy; to open a bank account; to take up a phone subscription; to get married; to legally recognise a child as his own; to enter a court room; to apply for social security benefits; to use the services of a notary, and to move about freely. He also claims that the failure to implement the final judicial decision in his favour (see below) breached his right of access to a court, as well as that he had no effective remedies at his disposal in relation to the above complaints, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The applicant, born in 1980, has been living for a number of years as a homeless person. In October 2022 his identity card was stolen. The police fined him on 3 February 2023 for not having an identity document when they asked him to identify himself. On 14 February 2023 the applicant applied to the relevant department of the Ministry of Interior, seeking to have an identity card issued to him. He was assisted by a lawyer from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. On 14   March 2023 the authorities refused his request in writing, referring to the fact that he did not have a valid permanent address. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings. In a decision of 8 June 2023 the Administrative Court Sofia City (the administrative court) quashed as unlawful the refusal to issue the applicant with an identity card and remitted the case to the authorities with relevant instructions. That decision became final on 29 June 2023. Between July 2023 and October 2023 the applicant pursued the following steps in his attempts to obtain an identity card. On 18 July 2023 he visited in person the office to which he had applied initially, inquiring whether a card had been issued to him; the authorities replied in the negative. On the same date he wrote to the head of that office, asking that the officials act in implementation of the final judicial decision. On 20 July 2023 the applicant requested from the administrative court to fine the relevant officials for failing to take action following the final decision in his favour. On 11 September 2023 the court refused to issue a fine, reasoning – by reference to the correspondence between the different bodies (see below) – that some related activity had nonetheless taken place. On 1 August 2023 the applicant wrote to the prosecutor complaining of the authorities’ failure to implement the final decision in his favour. Apparently having heard nothing following that complaint, on 3 October 2023 he asked to be constituted as a civil party in the proceedings. At the time of applying to the Court, the applicant had not been apprised of any related action by the prosecutor. On 3 August 2023 the police informed the applicant in writing that his file had been sent to another administrative body – a registration and administrative services office – for action. On 16 August 2023 the applicant was asked in writing by the deputy head of the national police to provide explanations in connection with his case; he complied with the assistance of his lawyer. On 3 October 2023 the applicant again asked the administrative court to fine the relevant public officials for continually failing to implement the final decision in his favour. It is unclear whether the court reacted to this request. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, as a result of the authorities’ continued refusal to issue him with an identity card (compare, mutatis mutandis , G.T.B. v. Spain , no. 3041/19, §   113, 16   November 2023, with further references)? 2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? 3. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? 4. Was the final judicial decision in the applicant’s favour – quashing as unlawful the refusal to issue him with an identity card – enforced and, if yes, when? 5. If that decision was not enforced, did the failure of the authorities to implement it amount to a breach, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the applicant’s right of access to a court (see, among many other authorities, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, § 65, ECHR 2009, and Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) , no. 64387/14, §§ 47 and 51, 7 December 2021)? 6.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy, as required by Article   13, in respect of his complaints under Article 8 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?