CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   888 26.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Gochev v. Bulgaria (application no. 34383/03)     WITHDRAWAL OF PASSPORT FOR MORE THAN SIX YEARS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE REVIEW   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) of the European Convention on Human Rights       (The judgment is available in English and in French)     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Georgi Stefanov Gochev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Varna (Bulgaria).   In October 1999 and April 2001 enforcement orders were issued against the applicant at the request of private companies to which Mr Gochev owed money.   In decisions of 21 December 2001 and 27 May 2002, in accordance with the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act 1998, the director of the Department for Identity Documents ordered Mr Gochev’s passport to be withdrawn and instructed the competent authorities not to issue him with a new one.   Mr Gochev made several appeals to the Supreme Administrative Court, but to no avail: the court upheld the impugned decisions.   His creditors having made no further claims, the enforcement proceedings against Mr Gochev were discontinued and he has been free to leave the country since 17 May 2008.       Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) Mr Gochev alleged that his freedom to leave the country had been violated.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 October 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   A degree of ambiguity in the law on which the authorities had based their decision to restrict the applicant’s freedom of movement could not in itself lead to the conclusion that the interference had been unforeseeable to the extent that it was unlawful.   The Court reiterated that the domestic authorities were under an obligation to ensure that a breach of an individual’s right to leave his or her country was, from the outset and throughout its duration, justified and proportionate in view of the circumstances. Such review should normally be carried out, at least in the final instance, by the courts, since they offered the best guarantees of the independence, impartiality and lawfulness of the procedures.   In this case, however, Mr Gochev had been prevented from leaving the country for more than six years and four months, without any judicial review of the measures concerned. Once the measure had been imposed the authorities had not sought relevant information on the applicant’s personal situation or the circumstances of his failure to pay his debts. Nor had the courts effectively reviewed the need for the measure. Mr Gochev had thus been subjected to measures of an automatic nature, with no limitation as to their scope or duration.   The Court accordingly found that the Bulgarian authorities had failed in their duty to ensure that the interference with Mr Gochev’s right to leave the country was, from the outset and throughout its duration, justified and proportionate in the light of the circumstances. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol no. 4.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   *** This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.