AFFAIRE RIENER CONTRE LA BULGARIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)100 Rider împotriva Bulgariei Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (întrebarea nr. 46343/99, Hotărârea din 23/05/2006, definitivă la 23/08/2006) (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 6 iunie 2013 în cadrul celei de-a 1172-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede ca Comitetul să supravegheze executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcările constatate reamintind obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum de măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare ; Am invitat guvernul statului pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor menționate anterior După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013)503 [1] FIȘĂ că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1); DECLARĂ că își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul art. 46 alin. (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . Acțiune report Nuler Riner, aplicația nr. 46343/99, judgment of 23/05/2006, final on 23/08/2006 DESCRIEREA OF THE CASE In the case of Riner , the applicant, an Austrian national who at the relevant time also had a Bulgarian nationality, was banned from leaving the Bulgaria between 1995 and 2004 for non-payment of tax debt amounting to approximately 150,000 Euros. The European Court found that the authorities had failed to take into account a number of aparcess, such as the fiscal authorities Acest fapt a fost datorat pentru faptul că under the legislation in force at the material time, a travel ban could be lifted only when the debt was either paid or secured for the full amount or eventually after the extinction of the debt by prescription. The Court found a viol of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 se datorează faptului că, în cazul în care există o interferență cu un an individual, este corect pentru a-i lăsa în pace sau în cazul în care aceaceasta este country is, from the outset and throughout its duration, justificed and proportionalate in the light of the circumstances. Moreover, the domestic scurts 16d with the appicants only procesed the formal lawfulness of the travel ban. The limit degree of review afforded to the aplicant lead to a violation of Article 13. INDIVIDUAL MEASURIs The travel ban has been lifted. The European Court awarded the applicant moraly damage for the suffering and distress she experienced. The Government has paid the sums awarded. The Government thus considers that no further individual measures are necessary in the case.GENERAL MEASSES Ass the general measures in this case, the Government puncts out to the folowing developments: În această rubrică, travelul ban had for legal basis the formation Law on the Sojourn of Aliens, superseded by the Aliens Act of 1998 (Provizioane aplicabile pentru foreign nationals), as well as the Law on international Passports, which was superseded in 1998 by the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act (Provizioane aplicabile pentru Bulgarian Nationals). a) Measures priving the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act At the time, section 75(5) of the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act provided that Bulgarian citizens who owed semnificant amounts to the State could be prevânzed from leaving the country. The Ministry of the Interior was obligad to impune a prohibition on leaving the country on any individual who owed semnificant amounts to the State, if such request was made by the relevant authorities and the payment of the debt has not been secured. In 2011 the Ombudsman challenged the provision of section 75(5) of the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act before the Constitutional Court, which, in a judgment of 31/03/2011, declarad that provision un constitutional. It found that the provision purpled a legitimate aim, but was prosed in a manner which was too wide, as it failed to diferenceish between debtors who had acted in bad fash and could be influenced by such a measure and bona fide debtors. In the latter case a travel ban would only of a punctive character and could even hamper the colection of the debt. În plus, the Constitutional Court referred to the provision of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and to the Rider judgment discussed here. Under Bulgarian law once the Constitutional Court has declarad a legal provision un constitutional, it is not to be applicated anymore. Thus, there is currently no legal ground for imposing measures restricting the liberty of mutation for failure to pay tax under the Bulgarian Personal Documente Act. (b) Measures priving the Aliens Act legislative measures The provisions of section 43 § 1 (2) and (3) of the extraterestres Act which provided that foreign citizens who owe semnificant amounts to the State or to other fizical or legal persons can be prevânded from leaving the country and that the Ministry of the Interior is obligad to impune such a prohibition, if the debt has not been secured, have been repealed in March 2013. Thus, currently there is no ground for imposing measures similar to the measures impuned to the aplicant. changes in case-law It should be resalled that even before the legislative changes of March 2013, the Supreme Administrative Court had developed a constant Practice in respect of administrative decisions to ban a foreigner from leaving the country which takes into account the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and the European Court.2012 in administrative case No. 13520/20111020 of the Supreme Administrative Court, judgment No. 3959 of 20.03.20012 in adm. case No. 16519/20111227 of the Supreme Administrative Court, judgment No. 4463 of 18.10.2011 în adm. Case No. 6124/2011 of the Sofia Administrative Court, Judgment No. 5115 of 09.04.2012 in adm. case No. 10074/20110817 of the Supreme Administrative Court, Judgment No. 5897 of 25.04.2012 in administrative case No. 11584/20110912 of the Supreme Administrative Court ) [2] In these judgments, the Supreme Administrative Courts has linked directly on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, as well as on other quality treaties and the Bulgarian Constitution in order to assess the proportionality of the Measures taken under Section 43 of the Aliens Act. According to this new Practice of the Supreme Administrative Court, administrative decisions which do not take into account the personal situation of the foreigner send, his ability to pay and other factorrs apart for the assessment of the proportionality of the measure taken are to be quashed by the administrativ scurts. The Supreme Administrative Court has folowed this Practice in all the reported judgments delivered in 2011 and 2012 of which the Bulgarian authorities have knowledge. on the bazis of the considerations above the Government is of the view that no further general measures are necessary in this case. [1] Numai în limba engleză. [2] Реение No 5175 от 10.04.2012 г. по адм. No 13520/20111020 на Върновния адмистративен съд, Реение No 3959 от 20.03.2012 г. по адм. No 16519/20111227 на Върния адмистративен съд, Реение No 4463 от 18.10.2011 г. по адм.д. nr. 6124/2011 г. на Адмистративен сътитивен съд София, Реение No 5115 от 09.04.2012 г. по адм. No 10074/20110817 на Върнен адмитититивен съд, Реение пот 25. м. м. No 11584/20110912 на Върновния административен съд.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)100

Riener contre Bulgarie

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

(Requête n° 46343/99, arrêt du 23/05/2006, définitif le 23/08/2006)

(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 juin 2013,

lors de la 1172e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)

Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»),

Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et les violations constatées

;

Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe

1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire

:

-

de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par

restitutio in integrum

;

et

-

de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;

Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées

;

Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document

DH-DD(2013)503

)

[1]

;

S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées

;

DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et

DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Action report Riener

Riener,

application no. 46343/99, judgment of 23/05/2006, final on 23/08/2006

1)

DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE

In the case of

Riener

, the applicant, an Austrian national who at the relevant time also had a Bulgarian nationality, was banned from leaving the Bulgaria between 1995 and 2004 for non-payment of tax debt amounting to approximately 150,000 Euros. The European Court found that the authorities had failed to take into account a number of relevant issues, such as the fiscal authorities’ inactivity, the debtor’s potential ability to pay and the questions related to the applicant’s private and family life. This failure was due to the fact that under the legislation in force at the material time, a travel ban could be lifted only when the debt was either paid or secured for the full amount or eventually after the extinction of the debt by prescription. The Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 due to the authorities’ failure to ensure that any interference with an individual's right to leave his or her country is, from the outset and throughout its duration, justified and proportionate in the light of the circumstances.

Moreover, the domestic courts seized with the applicant’s appeals only examined the formal lawfulness of the travel ban. The limited degree of review afforded to the applicant lead to a violation of Article 13.

2)

INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

The travel ban has been lifted.

The European Court awarded the applicant non-pecuniary damage for the suffering and distress she experienced. The Government has paid the sums awarded.

The Government thus considers that no further individual measures are necessary in the case.

3)

GENERAL MEASURES

As concerns the general measures in this case, the Government points out to the following developments:

In this case the travel ban had for legal basis the former Law on the Sojourn of Aliens, superseded by the Aliens Act of 1998 (provisions applicable to foreign nationals), as well as the Law on international passports, which was superseded in 1998 by the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act (provisions applicable to Bulgarian nationals).

a) measures concerning the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act

At the time, section 75(5) of the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act provided that Bulgarian citizens who owed significant amounts to the State could be prevented from leaving the country. The Ministry of the Interior was obliged to impose a prohibition on leaving the country on any individual who owed significant amounts to the State, if such request was made by the relevant authorities and the payment of the debt has not been secured.

In 2011 the Ombudsman challenged the provision of section 75(5) of the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act before the Constitutional Court, which, in a judgment of 31/03/2011, declared that provision unconstitutional. It found that the provision pursued a legitimate aim, but was phrased in a manner which was too wide, as it failed to distinguish between debtors who had acted in bad faith and could be influenced by such a measure and bona fide debtors. In the latter case a travel ban would only be of a punitive character and could even hamper the collection of the debt. In addition, the Constitutional Court referred to the provision of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and to the

Riener

judgment discussed here.

Under Bulgarian law once the Constitutional Court has declared a legal provision unconstitutional, it is not to be applied anymore. Thus, there is currently no legal ground for imposing measures restricting the liberty of movement for failure to pay tax debts under the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act.

b) measures concerning the Aliens Act

-

legislative measures

The provisions of Section 43 § 1 (2) and (3) of the Aliens Act which provided that foreign citizens who owe significant amounts to the State or to other physical or legal persons can be prevented from leaving the country and that the Ministry of the Interior is obliged to impose such a prohibition, if the debt has not been secured, have been repealed in March 2013. Thus, currently there is no ground for imposing measures similar to the measures imposed to the applicant.

-

changes in case-law

It should be recalled that even before the legislative changes of March 2013, the Supreme Administrative Court had developed a constant practice in respect of administrative decisions to ban a foreigner from leaving the country which takes into account the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and the European Court’s case-law (see, for instance, judgment No.5175 of 10.04.2012 in administrative case No.

13520/20111020 of the Supreme Administrative Court, judgment No. 3959 of 20.03.20012 in adm. case No. 16519/20111227 of the the Supreme Administrative Court, judgment No. 4463 of 18.10.2011

in adm. Case No. 6124/2011 of the Sofia Administrative Court, Judgment No. 5115 of 09.04.2012 in adm. case No.

10074/20110817 of the Supreme Administrative Court, Judgment No. 5897 of 25.04.2012 in administrative case No. 11584/20110912 of the Supreme Administrative Court )

[2]

.

In these judgments, the Supreme Administrative Courts has relied directly on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, as well as on other relevant international treaties and the Bulgarian Constitution in order to assess the proportionality of the measures taken under Section 43 of the Aliens Act.

According to this new practice of the Supreme Administrative Court, administrative decisions which do not take into account the personal situation of the foreigner concerned, his ability to pay and other factors relevant for the assessment of the proportionality of the measure taken are to be quashed by the administrative courts. The Supreme Administrative Court has followed this practice in all the reported judgments delivered in 2011 and 2012 of which the Bulgarian authorities have knowledge.

On the basis of the considerations above the Government is of the view that no further general measures are necessary in this case.

[1]

En anglais uniquement.

[2]

Решение № 5175 от 10.04.2012 г. по адм. д. № 13520/20111020 на Върховния административен съд, Решение № 3959 от 20.03.2012 г. по адм. д. № 16519/20111227 на Върховния административен съд, Решение № 4463 от 18.10.2011 г. по адм.д. № 6124/2011 г. на Административен съд – София, Решение № 5115 от 09.04.2012 г. по адм. д. № 10074/20110817 на Върховния административен съд, Решение № 5897 от 25.04.2012 г. по адм. д. № 11584/20110912 на Върховния административен съд.