FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application s no s . 2065/06 , 38072/06 and 36206/07 Dancho Tsvetanov STOYANOV and Others against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 9 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Ledi Bianku, President , Zdravka Kalaydjieva ,

Krzysztof Wojtyczek , judges , Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. Application no. 2065/06 was lodged on 5 January 2006 by Mr Dancho Tsvetanov Stoyanov , a Bulgarian national born in 1963 and living in Sofia. He was not legally represented.

2. Application no. 38072/06 was lodged on 5 September 2006 by Mr Anton Todorov Marinov , a Bulgarian national born in 1970 and living in Stara Zagora. He wa s represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva , lawyer s practising in Plovdiv.

3. Application no. 36206/07 was lodged on 1 August 2007 by Mr Pene Vladimirov Aleksiev , a Bulgarian national born in 1967 and living in Blagoevgrad. He was not legally represented.

4. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Panova , of the Ministry of Justice .

A. The circumstances of the case

5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. The case of Mr Stoyanov

6. Mr Stoyanov worked as a police officer at the Pravets District Police Department.

7. At the order of his superior, o n 25 April 2000 Mr Stoyanov underwent a psychological assessment at the Ministry of Inter nal Affairs ’ Psychology Institute. The Institute found that he was mentally unfit to work at the Ministry. As a result, on 28 July 2000 the Minister of Internal Affairs dismissed Mr Stoyanov from his post , citing his mental unfitness for work at the Ministry , as established by the Institute (section 253(1)(5) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 2007 , taken together with regulation 251(1)(6) of the regulations for the application of the Act).

8. On an unspecified date Mr Stoyanov sought judicial review of the Minister ’ s decision . While those proceedings were pending, in 2004 several persons, including Mr Stoyanov , brought a legal challenge to regulation 251(1 )( 6) before the Supreme Administrative Court. In a judgment of 8 February 2005, which came into effect on 18 February 2005 , following its publication in the State Gazette, that court struck out the phrase “established by the [Ministry ’ s] Psychology Institute” in that regulation .

9. In a final judgment of 18 July 2005 , a five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Minister ’ s decision to dismiss Mr Stoyanov . It held , in particular, that the psychological assessment procedure had been duly followed and that it was not open to the court to scrutinise the Institute ’ s psychological assessment. The court went on to say that, since Mr Stoyanov ’ s dismissal had taken place before the judgment of 8 February 2005 , its lawfulness was to be determined by reference to the wording of regulation 251(1)(6) before its partial strike- out as a result of that judgment.

2. The case of Mr Marinov

10. Mr Marinov worked as a police officer at the Stara Zagora District Police Department.

11. On an unspecified date he underwent a psychological assessment at the Ministry of Inter nal Affairs ’ Psychology Institute. O n 25 June 2004 the Minister of Internal Affairs decided to dismiss Mr Marinov from his post, citing his mental unfitness for work at the Ministry , as established by th at Institute (section 253(1)(5) of the 2007 Act , taken together with regulation 251(1)(6) of the regulations for the application of the Act).

12. Mr Marinov sought judicial review of the Minister ’ s decision . On an unspecified date the proceedings as a whole were classified. In a judgment of 21 July 2005 a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Minister ’ s decision .

13. On an appeal by the Minister , on 29 March 2006 a five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court reversed three-member panel ’ s judgment and upheld the Minister ’ s decision . It held , in particular, that the psychological assessment procedure had been duly followed and that it was not open to the court to scrutinise the Institute ’ s psychological assessment .

14. On 20 June and 14 August 2006 Mr Marinov requested to obtain cop ies of the judgments in his case . He was only given a copy of the five ‑ member panel ’ s judgment.

3. The case of Mr Aleksiev

15. Mr Aleksiev worked as a police officer at the Blagoevgrad Regional Police Department.

16. On 28 April 2004 he underwent a psychological assessment at the Ministry of Internal Affairs ’ Psychology Institute. The Institute found that he was mentally unfit to work at the Ministry. As a result, on 21 June 2004 the Minister of Internal Affairs decided to dismiss Mr Aleksiev from his post.

17. Mr Aleksiev sought judicial review of th e Minister ’ s decision . In a final judgment of 7 February 2007 , a five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision . It found that the psychological assessment procedure had been duly followed and that the Minister had been bound by the Institute ’ s conclusions . The court did not scrutinise the psychological assessment .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

18. The relevant domestic law and practice have been set out in the Court ’ s judgment in Fazliyski v. Bulgaria (no. 40908/05 , §§ 28-43, 16 April 2013).

COMPLAINTS

19. The applicants in the three applications complain ed under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings for judicial review of the decisions of the Minister of Internal Affairs to dismiss them from their posts had been unfair , in particular because the Supreme Administrative Court had refused to scrutinise the validity of the psychological assessment s that had prompted those decisions . T he applicant in application no. 38072/06, Mr Marinov, in addition complained that there had existed divergent case-law in relation to the scope of judicial review of decisions of the Minister of Internal Affairs to dismiss police officers from their posts because some panels of the Supreme Administrative Court had scrutinised the psychological assessments carried out by the Ministry of Internal Affairs ’ Psychology Institute whereas other panels had refused to do so.

20. The applicants in the three applications also complain ed under Article 8 of the Convention that the impossibility to contest t he above- mentioned psychological assessment s had unjustifiably interfered with their right to respect for their private life, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their dismissals from their posts had amounted to an unjustified interference with their possessions , and under Article 14 of the Convention that the attitude of the authorities towards police officers had amounted to discrimination on the grounds of social status.

THE LAW

21 . On 14 February, 7 March and 16 June 2014 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants in the three applications agreed to waive any further claims against Bulgaria in respect of the facts giving rise to the applications in exchange for an undertaking by the Government to pay 2,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Stoyanov, EUR 2,500 to Mr Marinov and EUR 2,000 to Mr Aleksiev, plus any tax that could be chargeable to the applicant s, to cover any and all damage suffered by them and any costs and expenses incurred by them. The declarations went on to specify that those sum s would be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case s out of its list. In the event of fa ilure to pay those sums within that three-mont h period, the Government undertoo k to pay simple interest on them , from the 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. The parties were agreed that those payment s would constitute the final resolution of the three case s .

22. In view of the common factual and legal background of the three applications, the Court finds that they should be joined under Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court .

23. The Court further takes note of the friendly settlement s reached between the parties in the three cases . It is satisfied that th os e settlement s are based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and , bearing in mind in particular its judgment in Fazliyski (cited above, §§ 56-63 ), finds no reason to con tinue examining the applications.

24. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the Court ’ s list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

FatoÅŸ Aracı Ledi Bianku              Deputy Registrar President