A Bulgarian national had his Albanian citizenship revoked and faced deportation, but after domestic courts reinstated his citizenship and annulled the deportation order, he lodged an application with the ECtHR. The ECtHR declared his application inadmissible, ruling that Article 6 § 1 ECHR does not apply to citizenship or deportation proceedings, and found no violation of Protocol No. 4 or 7 as the deportation was never executed and domestic remedies were available. Other human rights complaints were also rejected due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and exceeding the six-month time limit.
- European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 5§1, 6§1, 8, 10, 35§§ 1, 3, and 4
- European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 4, Art 3
- European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 7, Art 1
- Constitution of the Republic of Albania, Art 92
- Law no. 8389 of 5 August 1998 on the Acquisition and Revocation of Albanian Citizenship, Sections 9, 13
The applicant, a Bulgarian national, served as the Bulgarian Ambassador to Albania from 1990 to 1997. In 1996, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria initiated legal proceedings against the applicant, which led to his suspension from office by ministerial order. On 10 February 1997, the Supreme Court of Bulgaria annulled the order. In 1997, the applicant and his family applied for Albanian citizenship which was granted by presidential decree on 17 April 1997. However, on 20 September 2001, the newly elected President of Albania annulled the decree, revoking the applicant's Albanian citizenship due to allegedly forged documents falsely stating that no criminal proceedings were pending against him in Bulgaria. On 2 October 2001, police officers took the applicant and his wife to a police station, where, after several hours, they were officially notified of the decree revoking his Albanian citizenship. A press release from the Ministry of Internal Affairs was issued on the same day. Furthermore, the applicant was verbally ordered to leave Albanian territory by 5 October 2001 or face forcible exile, pursuant to a deportation order dated 29 September 2001.
On 2 October 2001 the applicant lodged a claim with the Tirana District Court arguing that the presidential decree of 20 September 2001 was unconstitutional. The applicant also requested that execution of the deportation order be stayed. After several proceedings in various Albanian courts, on 23 December 2002, the District Court ruled in favour of the applicant in retrial proceedings, annulling the president's decree of 20 September 2001 as unsubstantiated and confirming the applicant's Albanian citizenship. Moreover, the deportation order was declared null and void as it was incompatible with the legal criteria.
The applicant complained about his unlawful detention in a police station, invoking Article 5 § 1 of the ECHR. The applicant's complaint concerned the time he spent in the police station on 2 October 2001, which he maintained amounted to deprivation of liberty’.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the ECHR, the applicant complained of the length, unfairness and lack of impartiality and independence of the domestic courts in the proceedings related to his citizenship and deportation.
The applicant also alleged that the Albanian authorities had infringed his right to respect for his private and family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR, through the public release and press coverage of his deportation, which followed the revocation of his Albanian citizenship. Relying on Article 10 of the ECHR, the applicant complained about the persecution he had suffered on account of his political opinions.
Lastly, the applicant contended that the deportation order violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of expulsion of nationals) and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens), arguing that it had been issued without a clear determination of when the presidential decree of 20 September 2001, revoking his Albanian citizenship, took effect.
The decision explicitly states that ECtHR had "regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government" but does not contain a direct or separate summary of Albania’s submissions.
The Court found that Article 6 § 1 of the ECHR was not applicable to the proceedings concerning the revocation of citizenship and declared this part of the application inadmissible. The Court restated its established case law on its applicability. It explicitly held: ‘‘Article 6 § 1 of the ECHR does not apply to proceedings regulating a persons' citizenship and /or the entry, stay and deportation of aliens, as such proceedings do not involve either the “determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him” within the meaning of 6 § 1 of the ECHR)” (§ 2 of the Decision).
Concerning the complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of expulsion of nationals) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards for expulsion of foreigners), the Court made several observations. As regards Article 3 of Protocol No. 4, the Court noted that by virtue of the presidential decree of 20 September 2001, the applicant did not have Albanian citizenship at the time the deportation order was issued. The Court then held: “[e]ven if in some cases the revocation of the citizenship followed by expulsion may raise potential problems under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4, in the light of the fact that the deportation order was not executed, the Court finds that there is no appearance of violation of that Article in the present case” (§ 5 of the Decision).
As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, the Court observed that the applicant was never actually expelled from Albania, and he was able to challenge the expulsion orders domestically. The national courts ultimately declared these orders null and void following the annulment of the presidential decree revoking his Albanian citizenship. Accordingly, the complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 were both declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the ECHR.
The Court also addressed the applicant's complaints regarding Article 5 § 1 (deprivation of liberty) and Article 8 (right to private and family life). For both, it noted that the applicant had brought no court proceedings domestically in connection with these alleged violations. Furthermore, even assuming no legal remedies were available, the events complained of (2 October 2001) occurred more than six months before the application was lodged (3 December 2002). Consequently, these parts of the application were rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the ECHR, for being submitted out of time and for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
Finally, the applicant's complaint under Article 10 (freedom of expression), alleging persecution due to political opinions, was deemed unsubstantiated by the Court, as no evidence was submitted to support this claim. This complaint was therefore rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the ECHR.
The applicant's application was declared inadmissible.
- European Court of Human Rights, Valasinas v. Lithuania (dec), no. 44558/98, 14 March 2000
- European Court of Human Rights, S. v. Switzerland no. 13325/87, (dec.), 15 December 1988
- European Court of Human Rights, Šoć v. Croatia (dec.), no. 47863/99, 29 June 2000 (Correct application number: 47863/99; cited erroneously as 47863/9 in the ECtHR decision)
None