FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 14638/11 Vasil Hristov GEORGIEV against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 March 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,

Yonko Grozev,

Lado Chanturia, judges,

and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 February 2011,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 27 September 2017 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Vasil Hristov Georgiev , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Sofia. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Peychev , a lawyer practising in Sofia.

The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimitrova , of the Ministry of Justice.

The applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that he had been made subject to a ban on leaving the country and that the authorities had not assessed the proportionality of that measure.

The application had been communicated to the Government .

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 27 September 2017 the Government submitted to the Court a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

In that declaration they acknowledged a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. They undertook to pay the applicant 1,600 euros. They stated that this sum was to cover any and all damage as well as costs and expenses, that it would be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant, and that it would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The sum would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court to strike the case out of its list. In the event of failure to pay the sum within the said period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

By a letter of 10 January 2018, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration and, in particular, with the amount of compensation proposed in it.

THE LAW

The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“ for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

The Court has found violations of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention on account of disproportionate restrictions on individuals ’ freedom of movement in a number of cases against Bulgaria (see, for example , Riener v. Bulgaria , no. 46343/99, § 130, 23 May 2006; Ignatov v. Bulgaria , no. 50/02 , § 40, 2 July 2009; Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04 , §§ 60-67, 10 February 2011, and Pfeifer v. Bulgaria , no. 24733/04 , §§ 57-58, 17 February 2011 ).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases, taking into account the length of the travel ban – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 5 April 2018 .

             Anne-Marie Dougin Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer              Acting Deputy Registrar President