CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   537 02.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IGNATOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ignatov v. Bulgaria (application no. 50/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the European Convention on Human Rights, read separately and in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, on account of the refusal to issue the applicant with a passport.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   650 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Mihail Ignatov, was born in 1954 and lives in Varna.   On 20 June 2001 he made an urgent application for a passport in order to travel to Romania to fetch his daughter from Bucharest Airport three days later. The application was refused by the Regional Directorate for Internal Affairs (“the Directorate”) on the ground that the applicant was barred from obtaining a passport as a result of an administrative measure taken in the context of civil proceedings brought against him by a bank in late 1998 for failure to repay a loan. Mr   Ignatov maintained that he was unaware of the measure.   The decision of 29 January 1999 in which the measure had been ordered by the chief of police had been sent by the Directorate in February 1999 to Mr Ignatov’s permanent address in Kotlentsi, within the Directorate’s territorial jurisdiction. After Mr Ignatov’s mother had indicated that her son did not actually live there, the letter of notification had then been sent to Varna, albeit to a different address from the one supplied by the applicant in the enforcement proceedings and mentioned in the decision of 29 January 1999.   In addition, on 12 February 1999 the enforcement judge had stayed the proceedings brought by the bank against Mr Ignatov, who had made a partial repayment and undertaken to make further payments.   On 21 June 2001, on being informed of the refusal of his urgent application for a passport, the applicant sought to have the ban lifted, but was unsuccessful as the enforcement judge – who alone was empowered to take such action, having imposed the measure – was on leave.   On the same day the Directorate refused a request by Mr Ignatov to leave Bulgarian territory for one day on 23 June in order to fetch his daughter; he was thus unable to do so. The ban was lifted on 13 July 2001 at the request of the enforcement service.   An action for compensation brought by Mr Ignatov against the Directorate in 2003 was dismissed on the ground that the decision in question had been issued by the National Police Service and not the Directorate. The Supreme Court of Cassation also dismissed an appeal on points of law by Mr Ignatov, holding that the Directorate had not been required to serve the decision at an address outside its territorial jurisdiction and that it had brought it to the attention of Mr Ignatov’s mother at his permanent address. The Supreme Court of Cassation added that it had been possible for him to apply for judicial review at the time he had become aware of the decision.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 December 2001 and its admissibility and merits were examined together.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Rait Maruste (Estonia), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Renate Jaeger (Germany), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), judges , Pavlina Panova (Bulgaria) , ad hoc judge , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 13, the applicant complained that his right to move freely and to leave his country had been infringed on account of the refusal to issue him with a passport, and that he had not been informed of that decision in good time and had no remedies in respect of it.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 of Protocol No. 4   The ban on issuing Mr Ignatov with a passport for more than two years had amounted to interference with his right to freedom of movement and had had a legal basis in the International Passports Act. The interference had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of others, namely his creditors.   However, such a measure could not remain in place over a long time without periodic reassessment of its justification. In the applicant’s case, despite the fact that his debt had been repaid only a few days after the ban had been imposed, the enforcement judge had not taken any action and the police had not at any time examined whether the ban was necessary.   Mr Ignatov had therefore been prevented from travelling on the basis of a restrictive measure which had long since lost all justification and had remained in force because of the inaction of the competent authorities.   The Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of movement had breached Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.   Article 13   Mr Ignatov had not had the possibility of applying for judicial review of the decision of 29   January 1999 as he had not been informed of it until 20 June 2001. That remedy had, moreover, lost its purpose from 13 July 2001, when the ban had been lifted. The Court noted, in relation to the confusion over addresses, that there was no evidence of any shortcomings on Mr Ignatov’s part in this regard.   Furthermore, Mr Ignatov’s request to the Directorate to lift the ban had been unsuccessful, as had his action for compensation for the unlawful decisions or actions of the State authorities. The Court noted that an application for judicial review of the refusal to issue him with a passport on 20   June 2001 would probably not have been effective given the very short time at his disposal.   The Court concluded that the applicant had not had a domestic remedy available in respect of his complaint, in breach of Article 13.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.