Vasilev
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 3. December 2024. brought, and 14. January 2025. published a verdict in the caseVasilev v. Serbia, No. 48150/18.
The verdict isbroughtThe three-member committee.
The case refers to the non-biting to the applicant to meet the reasons on which he was revoked by his weapon posture, nor to oppose them, as they were identified as confidential. The Court assessed that domestic authorities did not provide a contradictory trial and an equality of weapons in the administrative dispute, and that the applicant's interests were in a valid manner, thus disturbed the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. Conventionfor the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention). |
Circumstances Case
Ministry of Interior - Police Department in Vranje - Police station in Bosilegrad is 1. July 2015. passed a solution, which was taken away from the applicant earlier as the user of the hunting rifle. As a reason for confiscation, the needed need to protect the "personal and material security of other persons", based on the security check conducted by the police. The applicant was not familiar with the content of the results of this check.
Unsatisfied with the first-instance solution, the applicant appealed to the second instance authority that was rejected as unfounded.
The applicant was then on November 28, 2015. initiated an administrative dispute against the second instance solution, claiming that the solution was not adequately explained, as well as that it was disabled to participate effectively in the proceedings.
In response to the applicant's lawsuit, the Ministry of Interior submitted a confidential document on the administrative court. The Administrative Court performed an insight into that document without the presence of the parties and the applicant did not meet his content.
Without maintaining a public hearing, the Administrative Court - the Department in Nis is 8. September 2016. passed the verdict in. 16502/15 who refused the applicant's lawsuit. In the reasoning of the judgment, among other things, is pointed out that legal restrictions prevent that court from discovering or commenting confidential information in its judgment.
The applicant filed against the Judgment of the Administrative Court to the Constitutional Court Constitutional Appeal, which was rejected by the Decision of the UK-8001/2016 of 1. March 2018. years.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant filed a petition to the court29. September 2018 years.
The applicant complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. of the Convention, as he did not have the opportunity to participate effectively in the procedure and respond to the other party's claims, as it was not known to him.
Decision Court
The Court first rejected the government that the applicant has not suffered more significant damage with the reasoning that the right to adversion procedure and equality of weapons in court proceedings are of general importance.
By deciding on the merits, the Court found that the facts that the police were invited to be considered very generally, without referring to the specific circumstances of the applicant. Therefore, the Court assessed that the applicant was certainly not familiar with the charges against him, which prevented him from being effectively challenged, was in factual.
The Court further found that the proceedings before the applicant protected the interests before the Administrative and provided him with a fair trial, ie that the procedure preceding the verdict did not fulfill the requirement of the contradictory and equality of the parties. It was especially pointed out that the administrative court supported the Ministry of Interior without an independent assessment of confidential facts on which the decision was based, as well as that the applicant was not provided to counteracts from security check, nor was the public hearing.
The Court finally mentioned that the police or administrative court did not claim that the denial of relevant information was justified by the applicant, such as national security, witness protection, nor protection of confidential police investigative methods.
The Court concluded that any efforts had not been made at the domestic level to enable the applicant to dispute the specific allegations from the security check or to hold a public hearing before the administrative court.
Consequently, the Court determined a violation of Article 6. Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of HUR 3,600.00 in the name of compensation of intangible damage and the amount of 2,000.00 euros in the name of cost fees.