CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 juin 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 231 July 2019 Yankov v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 44768/10 Decision 18.6.2019 [Section V] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Lack of genuine and serious dispute over establishment of statutory grounds for disbarment mandatory under domestic law and not amenable to appeal: Article 6 not applicable; inadmissible Facts – The applicant, a notary, was struck off the register of notaries, following his conviction for drawing up a document containing false statements in an official capacity. Under domestic law, persons sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal offence committed intentionally were not allowed to practise as a notary. There was no possibility of appeal. Law – Article 6 §   1: The applicant had been duly registered and had had the right to practise as a notary. As that registration was not limited in time, the applicant could, in principle, maintain that under Bulgarian law he had had a right to remain on the register of notaries. At the same time, the right of the applicant to continue practising as a notary had been conditioned on the lack of a criminal conviction for an intentional crime. Under the applicable legislation, the applicant did not have the possibility of challenging the Council of Notaries’ decision striking him off the register. However, the Council’s decision was not one taken following examination of the merits of the case. In striking the applicant off the register of notaries, the Council had enjoyed no discretion. The legislator itself had made disbarment mandatory upon it being established that the individual concerned had been sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal offence committed intentionally. The applicant’s conviction for certifying a document containing false statements had become final. In accordance with the national law, the applicant had thereby fallen within a category of persons excluded from practising as a notary. The applicant had only challenged his criminal conviction and questioned the competence of the Council to take the decision for his disbarment. The relevant law unequivocally empowered the Council to strike an individual off the register upon the establishment of statutory grounds on which a notary lost the right to practice. No dispute existed as to whether or not the applicant had been sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal offence committed intentionally. In those circumstances, there was no genuine and serious dispute about a right guaranteed under national law. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes