VASILEV v. Serbia
On December 3, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) issued a judgment in the case, and on January 14, 2025, it announcedVasilev against Serbia, number 48150/18.
It's a verdictbroughtthree-member Board.
The case refers to the failure to provide the applicant with the opportunity to familiarize himself with the reasons on the basis of which his license to carry weapons was revoked, nor to oppose them, since they are marked as confidential. The court assessed that the domestic authorities did not ensure an adversarial trial and equality of arms in the administrative dispute, and that the applicant's interests were not properly protected, which violated his right to a fair trial from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention.for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Convention). |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
On July 1, 2015, the Ministry of Internal Affairs - Police Department in Vranje - Police Station in Bosilegrad passed a decision by which the applicant's weapon license, which was previously issued to him as a user of a hunting rifle, was taken away. The reason for confiscation was the need to protect the "personal and material safety of other persons", based on a security check carried out by the police. The applicant was not aware of the content of the results of this check.
Dissatisfied with the first-instance decision, the applicant appealed to the second-instance authority, which was rejected as unfounded.
Then, on November 28, 2015, the applicant initiated an administrative dispute against the second-instance decision, claiming that the decision was not adequately explained, and that he was prevented from effectively participating in the proceedings.
In response to the applicant's complaint, the Ministry of Internal Affairs submitted a confidential document on the security check to the Administrative Court. The Administrative Court inspected that document without the presence of the parties and did not inform the applicant of its contents.
Without holding a public hearing, on September 8, 2016, the Administrative Court - Division in Niš issued the verdict U. 16502/15, which rejected the applicant's lawsuit. In the explanation of the judgment, it was pointed out, among other things, that legal restrictions prevent that court from revealing or commenting on confidential information in its judgment.
Against the ruling of the Administrative Court, the applicant submitted a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court, which was rejected by decision Už-8001/2016 of March 1, 2018.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted a petition to the Court29. September 2018.
In the petition, the applicant complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention, because he did not have the opportunity to effectively participate in the proceedings and to respond to the claims of the other party, since he was not aware of them.
THE DECISION THE COURT
The court first rejected the Government's objection that the applicant did not suffer significant damage with the explanation that the right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms in court proceedings is a question of general importance.
When deciding on the merits, the Court found that the facts that the police referred to when revoking the applicant's license were stated very generally, without referring to the specific circumstances of the applicant's case. Therefore, the Court assessed that the applicant was certainly not aware of the accusations against him, which made it impossible for him to effectively dispute them, either factually or legally.
The court further established that the proceedings before the Administrative Court did not protect the applicant's interests and ensure a fair trial, that is, that the proceedings preceding the rendering of the judgment did not meet the requirement of adversariality and equality of parties. In particular, he pointed out that the Administrative Court supported the decision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs without its own independent assessment of the confidential facts on which the decision was based, as well as that the applicant was not given the opportunity to oppose the allegations from the security check, nor was he provided with a public hearing.
The court finally noted that neither the police nor the Administrative Court claimed that the denial of relevant information to the applicant was justified by interests such as national security, witness protection, or the protection of confidential police investigative methods.
The Court concluded that no efforts were made at the domestic level to enable the applicant to challenge the specific charges arising from the security check or to hold a public hearing before the Administrative Court.
Consequently, the Court established a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)
The court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the applicant the amount of 3,600.00 euros in the name of compensation for non-material damage and the amount of 2,000.00 euros in the name of compensation for expenses.