az emberi jogok európai bíróságának döntése dolník erzsébet és fehér istván...

7/27/2019 Az Emberi Jogok Eurpai Brsgnak dntse Dolnk Erzsbet s Fehr Istvn beadvnyrl

1/10

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 14927/12 and 30415/12Istvn FEHR against Slovakia

and Erzsbet DOLNK against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 May2013 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,Alvina Gyulumyan,Corneliu Brsan,

Jn ikuta,Luis Lpez Guerra,

Nona Tsotsoria,Johannes Silvis, judges,

and Marialena Tsirli,Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to the above applications lodged on 8 March 2012 and

7 May 2012 respectively,Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS1. The applicants belong to the Hungarian minority living in Slovakia

and they are currently Hungarian nationals. The applicant in applicationno. 14927/12, MrIstvn Fehr (the first applicant), was born in 1960 andlives in Komrno. The applicant in application no. 30415/12, Ms ErzsbetDolnk (the second applicant), was born in 1940 and lives in Levice. Theywere represented before the Court by Mr Z. Lomnici, a lawyer practising inBudapest.


2/10

2 FEHR v. SLOVAKIA AND DOLNK v. SLOVAKIA DECISION

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may besummarised as follows.

1. The first applicants case

3. On 14 November 2011 the first applicant informed the Nitra DistrictOffice that he had acquired Hungarian citizenship on 15 September 2011.Referring to Article 5 2 of the Constitution, he indicated that he did notwish to give up his Slovak citizenship and wanted to continue living andworking in Slovakia as a Slovak citizen respecting the Constitution and thelaws of the Slovak Republic.

4. On 22 November 2011 the District Office asked the first applicant tocomplete and return a notice confirming his loss of Slovak citizenship.

5. On 14 December 2011 he informed the District Office that he was notwilling to comply with the above request, as the relevant provisions of theCitizenship Act 1993 were contrary to Article 5 2 of the Constitution.

6. On 13 February 2012, in the absence of any reply, the first applicantreiterated his arguments. He also referred to the fact that he had not beenformally notified of his loss of Slovak citizenship.

7. On 24 February 2012 the District Office informed the first applicantthat the relevant authorities had been notified that he had lost Slovakcitizenship on the basis of his letter indicating that he had acquired

Hungarian citizenship. He was reminded that his Slovak passport andidentity card had become invalid and had to be returned to the authorities. Incases where persons had voluntarily opted for the citizenship of a differentState, they lost their Slovak citizenship ex lege. The Slovak authorities weretherefore not required to issue a formal certificate to that effect.

8. In a letter the first applicant asked his local authority, the KomrnoMunicipal Office, why he had not been notified along with the otherelectors of an upcoming parliamentary election scheduled for 10 March2012.

9. In its response of 23 February 2012 the Municipal Office informedhim that the law obliged it to delete from the electoral register all persons

who had lost Slovak citizenship.10. In a different letter of 23 February 2012 the Municipal Officeinformed the first applicant that it had been notified by the District Officeon 27 December 2011 that he had lost Slovak citizenship. He was advised toaddress his request for a certificate of his permanent address to the relevantdepartment of the police, who kept a register of foreigners permanentlyresiding in Slovakia.

11. The first applicants employer made his continued employmentconditional upon his compliance with the statutory obligations imposed on


3/10

FEHR v. SLOVAKIA AND DOLNK v. SLOVAKIA DECISION 3

foreigners residing in Slovakia and his adherence to the social securityinsurance scheme.

12. The first applicant experienced health problems owing to stressresulting from the above.

2. The second applicants case

13. On 25 August 2011 the second applicant informed the Nitra DistrictOffice that she had sworn an oath of allegiance and obtained Hungariancitizenship on 18 August 2011. She further declared that she was notrenouncing her Slovak citizenship and that she wished to continue living inSlovakia and respecting its laws.

14. On 4 January 2012 the second applicant asked the District Office toissue her with a Slovak citizenship certificate. She reiterated her intention toremain a Slovak national and argued that under the Constitution, no onecould be deprived of Slovak citizenship against his or her will.

15. On 16 January 2012 the District Office advised the second applicantthat under section 9(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act 1993, persons who hadvoluntarily acquired a different States citizenship automatically lost Slovakcitizenship. The District Office therefore issued no certificates in thatrespect.

16. On 17 February 2012 the second applicant asked her local authority,the Levice Town Office, why she had not been notified along with the otherelectors of the upcoming parliamentary election.

17. On 20 February 2012 the Town Office informed the secondapplicant that it had been notified by the District Office that she had lostSlovak citizenship. On that basis, and in accordance with the relevant law,the Town Office had deleted her from the electoral register. She wastherefore disallowed from voting in the parliamentary election on 10 March2012. Her complaint was dismissed as being totally devoid of merit, withreference to the fact that she had lost Slovak citizenship.

18. On 1 March 2012 the second applicant complained to the DistrictOffice that she had received no official notification of her loss of Slovakcitizenship. She was thereby prevented from seeking redress from theSlovak authorities.

19. On 18 April 2012 the District Office informed the second applicantthat, following her letter of 25 August 2011, it had notified the relevantauthorities, namely the local authority in which she lived, the police, the taxand customs offices, and the institutions in charge of social and publichealth insurance, that she had lost Slovak citizenship. The law did notoblige the District Office to issue a certificate confirming loss of citizenship,as it took effect ex lege.

20. The Levice District Police repeatedly informed the second applicantthat, following her loss of Slovak citizenship, she was required by law toreturn her national identity card. She replied that she had received no


4/10


official notification of her loss of Slovak citizenship and still consideredherself to be a Slovak national. She pointed out that a group of members of

parliament had initiated proceedings to determine whether the relevantstatutory provisions conformed to the guarantees of the Constitution.

21. The police also asked the second applicant to return her Slovakpassport, which had become invalid following her loss of Slovakcitizenship. Her failure to do so was susceptible of constituting a minoroffence, for which a fine up to 33 euros (EUR) might be imposed.

22. The second applicant replied that she considered herself to bea Slovak citizen and therefore saw no reason for returning her identity cardand passport.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. The Constitution

23. Pursuant to Article 5 1, the circumstances under which personsacquire and lose Slovak citizenship are to be stipulated by law.

24. Article 5 2 provides than no person may be deprived of Slovakcitizenship against his or her will.

2. Citizenship Act 1993 (Law no. 40/1993, as amended)

25. The Citizenship Act 1993 (Zkon ottnom obianstve Slovenskejrepubliky), as amended with effect from 17 July 2010, contains thefollowing relevant provisions.

26. Section 9(1) provides:

Citizenship of the Slovak Republic may only be lost:

(a) by means of release upon ones own request;

(b) upon acquiring a foreign States citizenship by way of an explicit expression ofintent.

27. Section 9(16) provides that a person loses Slovak citizenship on thesame day he or she voluntarily acquires the citizenship of a foreign State byway of an explicit expression of intent such as a request, declaration or any

other action directed at acquiring the citizenship of a foreign State.28. Subsections (17) and (18) of section 9 provide exceptions to theabove, namely where a person acquires foreign citizenship (i) by marriageto a foreign national, provided that the person acquires the foreigncitizenship during the marriage, or (ii) by birth.

29. Pursuant to section 9(19), persons who lose their Slovak citizenshipunder section 9(16) are obliged to notify their local district office withoutdelay.

30. Section 9(20) read in conjunction with section 9(14) obliges therelevant district office to notify the following authorities of the persons loss


5/10


of Slovak citizenship under section 9(16): the local authority in which theperson resides, the police, the tax and customs offices, and the institutions in

charge of social and public health insurance.31. Section 9b(1)(d) provides that a minor offence has been committed if

a person fails to comply with the obligation under section 9(19), namely tonotify the district office about their loss of Slovak citizenship without delay.

32. Section 9b(2) renders such an offence punishable by a fine of up toEUR 3,319.

3. Relevant domestic practice

33. On 22 September 2011 thirty members of parliament claimed beforethe Constitutional Court that sections 9(1)b, 9(16), 9(19), 9b(1)(d) and 9b(2)of the Citizenship Act 1993 were contrary to Article 5 1 and 2 of theConstitution, Article 6 1 of the Convention, and Article 11 of theEuropean Convention on Nationality.

34. On 4 July 2012 the Constitutional Court at its plenary sessiondeclared the motion admissible.

35. The proceedings on the merits are pending.

C. Other relevant documents

1. European Convention on Nationality

36. The European Convention on Nationality (CETS No. 166) enteredinto force in respect of Slovakia on 1 March 2000. Its relevant provisionsread as follows:

Article 3 Competence of the State

1. Each State shall determine under its own law who are its nationals.

2. This law shall be accepted by other States in so far as it is consistent withapplicable international conventions, customary international law and the principles oflaw generally recognised with regard to nationality.

Article 4 Principles

The rules on nationality of each State Party shall be based on the followingprinciples:

(a) everyone has the right to a nationality;

(b) statelessness shall be avoided;

(c) no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality; ...

Article 5 Non-discrimination

1. The rules of a State Party on nationality shall not contain distinctions or includeany practice which amount to discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, race,colour or national or ethnic origin. ...


6/10


Article 7 Loss of nationality ex lege or at the initiative of a State Party

1. A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality

ex lege or at the initiative of the State Party except in the following cases:(a) voluntary acquisition of another nationality; ...

Article 11 Decisions

Each State Party shall ensure that decisions relating to the acquisition, retention,loss, recovery or certification of its nationality contain reasons in writing.

Article 12 Right to a review

Each State Party shall ensure that decisions relating to the acquisition, retention,loss, recovery or certification of its nationality be open to an administrative or judicialreview in conformity with its internal law. ...

Article 15 Other possible cases of multiple nationality

The provisions of this Convention shall not limit the right of a State Party todetermine in its internal law whether:

(a) its nationals who acquire or possess the nationality of another State retain itsnationality or lose it;...

2. Hungarian Citizenship Act 1993

37. With effect from 26 May 2010 the Hungarian Citizenship Act(Law no. LV of 1993) was amended. Its section 4(3) provides fornaturalisation, upon request and on preferential terms, of non-Hungariannationals with an ascendant of Hungarian nationality or who can plausiblyshow their Hungarian origins and provide proof of their knowledge of theHungarian language.

COMPLAINTS

38. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of theirSlovak citizenship contrary to Article 5 2 of the Constitution. Thatlegislation was not accompanied by any procedural guarantees permitting

them to seek the protection of their rights. As a result, they had beenexcluded from the parliamentary election and had encountered practicaldifficulties related to their social security insurance. The KomrnoMunicipal Office had refused to certify that the first applicant had his

permanent address in the town. The applicants alleged a breach of Articles13 and 14 of the Convention, of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 1of Protocol No. 12 in the context of the above.


7/10


THE LAW

A. Joint examination of the applications

39. In view of their similar factual background and the legal issuesraised, the Court considers it appropriate to examine both applications

jointly.

B. Complaint about the loss of Slovak nationality

40. The substance of the applicants complaints relates to the fact thatcontrary to their wish to retain Slovak citizenship, they lost it after they had

acquired Hungarian citizenship.41. In that connection, the Court reiterates that a right to nationality similar to that in Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or a right to acquire or retain a particular nationality, is not guaranteed bythe Convention or its Protocols. Nevertheless, the Court has not excludedthat an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise anissue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of sucha denial on the private life of the individual. Since the Conventionguarantees no right to nationality, the question whether a person was denieda States nationality arbitrarily in a way susceptible of raising an issue underthe Convention is to be determined with reference to the terms of the

domestic law (for a recapitulation of the relevant case-law see Kuri andOthers v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, 353, ECHR 2012; Genovesev. Malta, no. 53124/09, 30, 11 October 2011; Fedorova v. Latvia (dec.),no. 69405/01, 9 October 2003; Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96,ECHR 1999-II; Fedorova v. Latvia(dec.), no. 69405/01, 9 October 2003;and, mutatis mutandis, Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC],no. 48321/99, 77, ECHR 2002-II; all with further references).

42. In the present case, the applicants did not rely on their rights underArticle 8 of the Convention. In any event, the Court notes that they optedfor Hungarian citizenship of their own free will at a time when the relevant

provisions of the Slovak Citizenship Act 1993 were in force. Accordingly,

they decided to acquire Hungarian citizenship while being aware of theconsequences which such a decision would entail under Slovak law. Thusthey were not denied Slovak citizenship arbitrarily in view of the applicablelegal provisions. In these circumstances, and in view of the documents

before it, the Court discerns no issue under Article 8 of the Conventionwhich it should examine of its own initiative.

43. It follows that the complaints relating to the loss by the applicants oftheir Slovak citizenship and the breach of their rights under Article 5 2 ofthe Constitution and Slovakias undertakings under internationalinstruments other than the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae


8/10


with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article35 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 4.

C. Alleged breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both taken alone

and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention

44. The applicants complained that, following their loss of Slovaknationality, they had experienced difficulties as regards their adherence tothe Slovak social security system. They relied on Article 1 ofProtocol No. 1, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of theConvention.

45. The Court has held that benefits under a State s social securitysystem may, under certain circumstances, attract the guarantees of Article 1of Protocol No. 1, and that unjustified denial of such benefits on the groundof a persons nationality is contrary to Article 14 in conjunction withArticle 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, 77-92, ECHR 2009).

46. However, the applicants, apart from referring to difficulties asregards their social security insurance, did not specify the facts which theyconsidered to have resulted in a breach of the provisions at issue. In thatrespect their complaints are unsubstantiated.

47. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-foundedand must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 3 (a) and 4 of the

Convention.

D. Complaints about the applicants exclusion from the

parliamentary election and the refusal to issue the first applicant

with a certificate of his permanent address

48. The applicants complained that they had been disallowed fromvoting in the parliamentary election held in March 2012.

49. The Slovak authorities deleted the applicants from the parliamentaryelectoral register as they had lost Slovak citizenship. While it is true thatArticle 3 of Protocol No. 1 implies individual rights, including the right to

vote, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 41-42 above the Court finds thatno issue arises under that provision as a result of the fact that the applicantslost their Slovak citizenship ex lege upon their decision to acquireHungarian citizenship. Furthermore, no right can be derived from Article 3of Protocol No. 1 for foreigners to participate in the election of thelegislative body of a State of which they are not citizens (see Makuc andOthers v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 26828/06, 31 May 2007, 206 and 208, withfurther references and, for a broad recapitulation of the relevant principlesestablished under the Convention and other international instruments,


9/10


Sitaropoulos and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 42202/07, 21-30 and 63-68,ECHR 2012).

50. The first applicant also complained that the Komrno MunicipalOffice had refused to issue him with a certificate that he permanentlyresided in the town.

51. The Court notes that the municipal authority advised the firstapplicant to address his request to the police who registered the stay offoreigners in Slovakia (see paragraph 10 above). It does not appear from thedocuments submitted that in that context the first applicant encountered anydifficulties capable of raising an issue from the viewpoint of his rights underthe Convention and its Protocols.

52. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-foundedand must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 3 (a) and 4 of the

Convention.

E. Alleged breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12

53. The applicants further complained that the general prohibition ofdiscrimination laid down in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 had beendisregarded in their case.

54. The Court notes that Slovakia signed but has not yet ratified ProtocolNo. 12 to the Convention. It has therefore not entered into force in respectof the respondent State.

55. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible rationepersonae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning ofArticle 35 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 4.

F. Alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention

56. The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention thatthey had no effective remedy at their disposal as regards the alleged breachof their rights.

57. The Court observes that Article 13 of the Convention requiresdomestic legal systems to make available an effective remedy empowering

the competent national authority to address the substance of an arguablecomplaint under the Convention. The Court refers to its conclusion abovethat the complaints raised by the applicants were inadmissible. They areconsequently not arguable for the purposes of Article 13.

58. It follows that the complaint under Article 13 is manifestlyill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 3 (a) and4 of the Convention.


10/10


For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Josep CasadevallDeputy Registrar President

az emberi jogok európai bíróságának döntése dolník erzsébet és fehér istván...

Documents