CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 février 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 138 February 2011 Nalbantski v. Bulgaria - 30943/04 Judgment 10.2.2011 [Section V] Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 Freedom of movement Prohibition on leaving the country on account of a criminal conviction: violation   Facts – In 2000 the Bulgarian authorities prohibited the applicant from leaving the country and instructed him to surrender his international passport as criminal proceedings were pending against him. In 2003 he was convicted of theft and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for four years. On the basis of section 76(2) of the Identity Papers Act, the competent authority decided to take away the applicant’s passport until he had been rehabilitated. Law – Article 2 of Protocol No. 4: The applicant complained that, after 1   January 2007, the date on which Bulgaria joined the European Union, the travel ban imposed on him was no longer lawful because it did not meet the requirements of Article   27 of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which provided that measures restricting freedom of movement must be proportionate and based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Criminal convictions could not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures. Since Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union, the domestic courts had had several occasions to rule on the interplay between the Directive and section 76(2) of the Identity Papers Act with the result that the Act had been repealed in 2009. It was, however, unnecessary for the Court to determine whether the travel ban imposed on the applicant was “in accordance with the law”, since it found it incompatible with Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 for the following reasons. Travel restrictions on convicted criminals could be justified only in cases where clear indications of a genuine public interest outweighed the individual’s right to freedom of movement. That assessment had to be based on concrete elements indicative of a continued existence of a risk that such measures sought to forestall. In the applicant’s case, the authorities had given no reasons for taking away his passport and had not considered it necessary to examine his individual situation or explain the need to impose such a measure on him. They had thus failed to carry out the requisite assessment of proportionality of the restriction of the applicant’s right to travel abroad and provide sufficient justification for it. In the Court’s view, the mere fact that an individual had been criminally convicted and had not yet been rehabilitated could not justify the imposition of restriction of his or her freedom to leave the country. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found a violation of Article 6 §   1 and Article   13 of the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. Article 41: EUR 6,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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