The applicant claims to have suffered material and non-material damage because of acts and omissions by officials of the Municipality of Sliven. Her claims relate to the refusal by officials to issue her identity documents because they did not consider her to be a Bulgarian national. The Burgas Administrative Court dismissed the case as unfounded because the applicant did not appeal to the competent administrative body(which was the Ministry of Justice and not the Municipality of Sliven).
- Art. 21, 81, 143, 144, 203-205 Code of Administrative Procedure;
- Art. 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 State and Municipalities Liability for Damages Act;
- Art. 7 Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria;
- Art. 2, 6, 36, 37, 38, 39 Bulgarian Citizenship Act (repealed);
- Art. 10, 32 Bulgarian Identity Documents Act (repealed);
- Art. 1, 2 Convention on the Prevention of Dual Citizenship between the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the USSR (no longer in force).
The applicant was born in Sliven (the Republic of Bulgaria) in 1984, to a mother, who was a Bulgarian national, and to a father, who was a Soviet national. The applicant’s father made a handwritten note on a copy of the applicant’s birth certificate about selecting the Soviet nationality for the applicant as per the Convention on the Prevention of Dual Citizenship between the People’s Republic of Bulgaria and the USSR dated 6 July 1966 (the Dual Citizenship Convention). The applicant’s parents did not complete the process for acquiring the Soviet nationality under the Dual Citizenship Convention. Moreover, the Convention was not in force at the time when the handwritten note was made.
The applicant individually applied to obtain the Bulgarian identity documents when she reached the age required by law. On 15 February 2001, an identity card was issued. Then, on 18 May 2001, the identity card was cancelled because of the existing “exemption from Bulgarian citizenship” on the basis of Art. 10, item 2 and Art. 32, paragraph 1, item 1 of the then valid Bulgarian Identity Documents Act, in connection with list №2803/08.05.2001 of the Directorate "Bulgarian Identity Documents". The Bulgarian Identity Documents Act provides for a list of persons who are exempt from Bulgarian nationality or do not have it, but possess Bulgarian identity documents. The applicant returned her identity card without appealing the cancellation of her Bulgarian identity card. The applicant did not receive an explanation as to why her documents were destroyed or why the State organs considered that she is not a Bulgarian national.
Between 18 May 2001 and 14 September 2018 (the date on which the applicant was granted Bulgarian nationality), the applicant was not considered a Bulgarian national by the State but a stateless person.
The applicant states that she and her parents made repeated attempts to explain to the officials of the Municipality of Sliven that she has to be registered as a Bulgarian national by origin. She alleges that the refusals were made repeatedly and, as a result, she was forced to apply for a permanent residence permit which was eventually granted to her.
Numerous employees of the municipality of Sliven refused to comply with the request of the applicant to recognise her Bulgarian nationality and to issue personal identity documents to her.
In 2017, the applicant and her parents decided to turn to a higher institution for the resolution of the long-standing problem and submitted an application together with documents for acquiring Bulgarian nationality by naturalisation pursuant to Art. 15(1)(3) of the Bulgarian Citizenship Act to the Ministry of Justice.
In a reply dated 14.09.2018, the Ministry of Justice returned the documents she submitted. The Ministry of Justice explained that after an expert review of the documents, it was found that the provision of Art. 6(c) of the Bulgarian Citizenship Act of 1968 applied at the time of her birth. In accordance with this provision, a Bulgarian national by descent is any person born in the People's Republic of Bulgaria if one parent is a Bulgarian national and the other parent is a foreign national. As this was the case for the applicant, the Ministry of Justice considered her to be a Bulgarian national at the time of the application.
The applicant claims that at the time of her birth the Dual Citizenship Convention was in force. Although the applicant’s parents selected Soviet nationality for her, they did not finish the procedure described in Art. 1 of the aforementioned Convention and the applicant did not become a Soviet national. The applicant also refers to Art. 2 of the Convention in accordance with which, if the parents of a child do not apply for a choice of nationality, the child is deemed to be a national of the Contracting State in which the person was born. The applicant argues that this provision was analogous to Art. 6(c) of the Bulgarian Citizenship Act of 1968, according to which a Bulgarian national by descent is any person born in the People's Republic of Bulgaria if one parent is a Bulgarian national and the other parent is a foreign national, and she therefore considers herself a Bulgarian national by birth.
The applicant maintains that the non-recognition of her Bulgarian nationality between 2001 and 2018 caused problems regarding her Bulgarian identity documents. Without Bulgarian identity documents the applicant alleged that she was unable to leave the State as she would risk being unable to return. Thus, her right to free movement had been restricted. The applicant also explains that this situation cause a great hardship in every sphere of life where one is required to produce an identity document, i.e., public institutions, hospitals, educational establishments, etc.
The applicant considers that the reason for all this inconvenience is the unlawful conduct of the officials of the municipality of Sliven. These officials noted that she is not a Bulgarian national, solely on the basis of the handwritten consent of her parents described in the birth certificate, on the back of the submitted copy, without making the necessary inquiries to verify whether the parents actually made the required application for Soviet nationality under the Dual Citizenship Convention.
The deprivation of her Bulgarian nationality and the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the applicant were due to an incorrect notation on her birth certificate by officials of the municipality that she was a stateless person. This notation was submitted as false information to other state institutions.
The opposing party argue that the claim is inadmissible and unfounded.
The Court considers that the claim is unfounded.
Under Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, the State is liable for damages caused by illegal acts or actions of its organs and officials. The injured party is compensated directly by the respective legal entity of the body, official, or author of the illegal act or omission. It is objective and is borne irrespective of whether the damage was caused culpably.
Pursuant to Article 1(1) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damages Act, the State and municipalities are liable for the damages caused to nationals and legal entities by unlawful acts, actions or omissions of their bodies and officials in the course of or in connection with the performance of administrative activities.
According to the court, the applicant is undoubtedly to be classified as a Bulgarian national pursuant to Art. 6, third alternative of the Bulgarian Citizenship Act (repealed) since she was born in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria and one of her parents is a Bulgarian national. Since the Dual Citizenship Convention expired before the applicant was born, the convention had no legal effect on the applicant. Thus, the written statement made by the applicant’s father on the back of a copy of her birth certificate could not have any legal effect.
However, the court could not find evidence that the applicant contested the incorrect fact that she is not a Bulgarian national, that she has requested the restoration of her identity document and that she complained against the inaction of the administrative authorities and officials. The dismissal of the claim is therefore rooted in the division of competences between municipalities and the Ministry of Justice.
“Further changes in the nationality of persons on the basis of the provisions of Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 [Regulations for the Application of Title III of the Bulgarian Citizenship Act - repealed] shall be entered in the population registers of the municipal (district) people's councils, respectively town halls, only on the basis of prescriptions of the Ministry of Justice.” ("По-нататъшните промени в гражданството на лицата въз основа разпоредбите на глави 3, 4, 5, 6 и 7 [Правилник за приложение на Дял ІІІ от Закона за Българското Гражданство - отменен] се вписват в регистрите на населението на общинските (районните) народни съвети, съответно кметствата само въз основа на предписания на Министерството на правосъдието.”)
“On the basis of the above-mentioned legal provisions, the Court holds that, during the relevant periods, the Ministry of Justice is the only administrative authority competent to establish and duly certify the loss, acquisition or restoration of Bulgarian nationality by means of proper entries in its registers.” („Въз основа на горепосочените нормативни разпоредби съдът приема, че в относимите периоди единственият административен орган компетентен да установява и удостоверява надлежно загубването, респ. придобиването или възстановяването на българско гражданство чрез надлежни вписвания в своите регистри е Министерството на правосъдието.“)
According to the court, the applicant should have requested the issuance of a nationality certificate by the Ministry of Justice. Even if the Ministry of Justice would have unlawfully declined issuing the certificate or had issued it with false content, its decision could have been challenged judicially. “The correctness of the contents of that certificate was subject to challenge in court, but there is no evidence that such action was taken by the applicant.” (“Верността на съдържанието на това удостоверение е подлежало на оспорване по съдебен ред, но липсват данни подобни действия да са били предприемани от ищцата.”)
“[…] ‘The change of nationality shall be made on the basis of a communication from the Ministry of Justice (Article 83, paragraph 3 [Civil Status Ordinance - repealed])’, therefore this is the legal entity generating primary and authentic information on the presence or absence of Bulgarian nationality for any natural person born or residing in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria. No data and allegations of statements by the Ministry of Justice in official documents about the lack of Bulgarian nationality in respect of the applicant are pointed out and proved.” (“ […] ‘Промяната на гражданството се извършва въз основа на съобщение от Министерството на правосъдието (чл. 83, ал.3 [Наредба за гражданското състояние - отменена])’, следователно това е юридическото лице генериращо първична и автентична информация относно наличието или липсата на българско гражданство за всяко физическо лице родено или пребиваващо на територията на Република България. Данни и твърдения за изявления от страна на Министерство на правосъдието в официални документи за липса на българско гражданство по отношение на ищцата не се сочат и доказват.”)
The claim was considered to be unfounded.
No caselaw was cited by the Court.
There was no third party intervention in this case. The participation of a prosecutor is obligatory in accordance with State and Municipalities Liability for Damages Act.