CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 juillet 2012

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 154 July 2012 D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria - 29476/06 Judgment 24.7.2012 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Suspension of public official coupled with ban on exercising any gainful employment for six-year duration of criminal proceedings against him: violation   Facts – The first applicant was head of the Interior Ministry’s Economic Crime Department. In 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against him and he was suspended from his post. Despite his suspension, he remained subject to the ban on Ministry officials engaging in any other gainful employment. The applicant asked to be dismissed so that he could claim his pension entitlements, but his request was refused. Between 1999 and 2002 he made several applications to the courts to have his suspension overturned. He also asked to be reinstated in his post. None of his requests were successful. In 2005, following the applicant’s conviction in the criminal proceedings, the Minister for the Interior dismissed him. Law – Article 8: The applicant was not only complaining that he had been suspended from his post in the civil service but also that his suspension had been coupled with a general ban on any other gainful employment in the public and private sectors, except in the fields of teaching or research, a measure that had continued to apply until his dismissal six years later. This situation had for a prolonged period hindered him from developing professional relations with the outside world and, as a result, had interfered with his private life. The interference had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime. However, the delay of two and a half years in the criminal proceedings as a result of various shortcomings on the part of the investigative authorities and the courts had automatically prolonged both the applicant’s suspension and the ensuing restriction on his ability to apply for a post in the private sector. While in normal circumstances such a restriction could be justified by the concern to prevent conflicts of interests in the civil service, the application of this general ban in the applicant’s specific case – as a civil servant who had been suspended from his post for more than six years – had caused him to bear an excessive burden. Furthermore, the authorities had not provided any convincing explanation for their refusal to dismiss him, an outcome which would have allowed him to seek other employment. It was unclear how affording him this opportunity would have obstructed the criminal proceedings. Consequently, the restrictive measures complained of had not struck a fair balance between the applicant’s interests and those of society as a whole, and there had not been sufficient justification for the interference with the applicant’s private life. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found a violation of Article 6 §   1 in conjunction with Article 6 §   3   (a) and   (b), of Article 6 §   1 and of Article   13 in conjunction with Article 6 §   1 and Article   8. Article 41: EUR 5,800 to the first applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. (See also Karov v. Bulgaria , no.   45964/99, 16   November 2006)   © 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