Communicated on 14 December 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 55950/09 Sergey Aleksandrovich GRABCHAK against Bulgaria lodged on 18 September 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Aleksandrovich Grabchak , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Kiev. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Dobreva , a lawyer practising in Sofia.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant came to Bulgaria in 1995 and in 2003 was granted permanent resident status. In 1996 he started a relationship with Ms M., with whom he was living until his departure from Bulgaria in 2006. In 1997 the two of them had a son.

On 6 November 2006 the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs ’ National Security Service issued an order withdrawing the applicant ’ s residence permit, ordering his expulsion and imposing a ten-year ban on his re-entering Bulgaria on the ground that his presence in the country represented a “serious threat to national security”. Factual grounds were not indicated in the order; it was merely noted that it was based on “proposal no. B4923”.

Unaware of that order, on 15 November 2006, after having travelled to Ukraine, the applicant attempted to re-enter Bulgarian territory but was stopped at the border and not allowed in. Since then he has been living in Kiev, while, at least until the lodging of the present application, his family remained in Bulgaria.

Through his lawyer, the applicant applied for the judicial review of the order of 6 November 2006. In the course of the proceedings the National Security Service presented proposal no. B4923, which the applicant has submitted to the Court. It stated that the applicant had been involved in acts of extortion, smuggling, arm deals and money laundering, that he had operated with large amounts of illegally obtained money, that he had established contacts with Bulgarian officials, including police officers, who had been providing him with illegal services, and that he had been in contact with presumed terrorists.

On 17 April 2007 the applicant requested the Sofia City Court, with which the case was pending at the time, to direct the National Security Service to present evidence substantiating the above allegations. It is unclear whether any action was taken following that request.

The proceedings ended on 19 March 2009 with a final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, which upheld the order of 6 November 2006. The applicant was not given a copy of the judgment, because it was classified, and has not submitted such copy to the Court. According to him, the Supreme Administrative Court considered proposal no. B4923 sufficient to conclude that the applicant presented a threat to national security.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Raza v. Bulgaria (no. 31465/08, §§ 30-36, 11 February 2010).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the measures against him infringed upon his rights to family life and private life. He points out that until 2006 he was living with his family in Bulgaria, and that following his removal his partner and son remained in the country. Moreover, he argues that for the eleven years he spent in Bulgaria he established his social life there and developed relationships with other individuals, which were also disrupted. He considers that the interference with his family and private life was not “in accordance with the law”, as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, because, in view of the deficient judicial review carried out by the Supreme Administrative Court, he was not protected from arbitrariness.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, that he had no effective remedy to protect his rights to family life and private life. He also complains of the complete concealment from him of the judgment of 19 March 2009, which he considers sufficient for the Court to conclude that the judicial review proceedings initiated by him were ineffective.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the measures taken against him (see, for example, Raza v. Bulgaria , no. 31465/08, § 43-56, 11 February 2010, and Amie and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 58149/08, §§ 89-102, 12 February 2013)? Do the same facts also reveal a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Kaushal and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 1537/08, §§ 35-43, 2 September 2010) ?