EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

Questions: 1. What rights are envisaged by Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? 2. Which documents give an explanation on the rights set forth in Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? 3. What is the meaning of a “debt” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 4? 4. Is the freedom of movement absolute? If not, what are the possible limitations? 5. Please explain the meaning of the word “expulsion“ in the context of Article 3 of Protocol No. 4. 6. What are the main differences between the right guaranteed by Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? 7. How do you understand the notion of an “alien”? 1. Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, ECHR 2004-II. 2. Battista v. Italy , no. 43978/09, ECHR 2014. 3. De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, 23 February 2017. 4. De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, 23 February 2017. 5. Dzhaksybergenov v. Ukraine , no. 12343/10, 10 February 2011. 6. Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary , no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII. 7. M.K. and Others v. Poland, nos. 40503/17 and 2 others, 23 July 2020. 8. Miażdżyk v. Poland , no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012. 9. Milen Kostov v. Bulgaria , no. 40026/07, 3 September 2013. 10. Sarkizov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 37981/06, 38022/06, 39122/06, and 44278/06, 17 April 2012. 11. Stamose v. Bulgaria , no. 29713/05, ECHR 2012. KEY CASE-LAW Travel ban On 10 December 1992 a company, E. Ltd., laid charges of fraudulent bankruptcy and other offences against the applicants, then a married couple. Subsequently, the B. County Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the first applicant. On 17 November 1993 he was questioned as a suspect. On 27 December 1993 the B. County Police Department prohibited the alienation of the applicants’ real property and their cars. On 22 February 1994 the M. Public Prosecutor’s Office upheld this measure, observing that it was justified because it pursued the aim of guaranteeing the satisfaction of claims brought by the potential civil parties. Meanwhile, on 6 January 1994 the proceedings were extended to include the second applicant as a defendant. On 17 January 1994 the Passport Office of the Ministry of the Interior withdrew the first applicant’s passport until the termination of the criminal proceedings, under sections 2 and 13 CASE STUDIES

100

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION