S.N. AND T.D. v. LATVIA
Inadmissible
André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev
1. The applicants, Mr S.N. (“the first applicant”) and Mr T.D. (“the second applicant”), are two Russian nationals, who were born in 1977 and 1972 respectively and live in Moscow. The President of the Section decided that their names should not be disclosed (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of the Court). The Chamber also decided not to notify the Government of the Russian Federation of the present application on the grounds that Article 36 § 1 of the Convention did not apply in the circumstances of the present case (see I v. Sweden, no. 61204/09, §§ 40-46, 5 September 2013). 2. The applicants were represented before the Court by Ms C. Kruger and Mr O. Rode, lawyers practising in Strasbourg and Riga respectively. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs K. Līce. 3. The applicants complained, in particular, that their expulsion to the Russian Federation had put them at risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, and that they did not have effective remedies in that regard. They also complained under Article 8 of the Convention about interference with their family life and absence of procedural safeguards in that regard. 4. On 6 February 2014 the above-mentioned complaints were communicated to the Government. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. The applicants were born in what is now the Chechen Republic in the Russian Federation. The first applicant moved to Latvia in 1997 and has lived there ever since, on the basis of regularly renewed residence permits. In 2002 he was granted a permanent residence permit, which was renewed in 2007 and 2012. The second applicant moved to Latvia in 2002 and has lived there subsequently, on the basis of regularly renewed residence permits. 7. On 26 July 2012 the Latvian Minister of Interior adopted decisions to include the applicants in the list of aliens prohibited from entering and remaining in Latvia and the Schengen Area (hereinafter “the blacklist”) for an indeterminate period of time. These decisions were taken on the basis of a report by the Constitution Protection Bureau, one of the Latvian intelligence services (Satversmes aizsardzības birojs – hereinafter “the SAB”), submitted on 9 July and amended on 20 July 2012. The SAB had informed the Minister of Interior that both applicants had been engaging in criminal activity and planning to commit a serious crime, and hence posed a threat to national security and public order and safety. The part relating to national security grounds was identical in both decisions and stated: “The SAB indicated that the information obtained attests to [the applicant’s] criminal activity in a leading role within an organised criminal group. Similarly, it is apparent from the information provided by the SAB that [the applicant] is planning to commit a serious or especially serious crime which may have irreversible consequences on national security. As a consequence [the applicant] in his activity [is] a threat to public order and national security.” 8. The applicants were not made aware of the SAB’s report. 9. The decision concerning the first applicant pointed to the fact that he was married to a Russian national. It was therefore concluded that he would not encounter any obstacles in meeting his spouse outside Latvia. 10. In the decision concerning the second applicant it was noted that he was married to a Latvian national. His former wife (a Russian national) and their minor child were also residing in Latvia. The decision went on to state that an interference with the second applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life was justified, taking into account, among other things, that during the nine years he had resided in Latvia “he had not learned the [State language], which [had] clearly obstructed his integration into society”. It was also pointed out that he had moved to Latvia when he was over eighteen, which meant that his ties to his native country had not disappeared. With regard to him having an opportunity to meet his young son, the decision stated that he had already agreed in 2002, while still residing in Russia, that the child would reside with his mother in Latvia. It was therefore concluded that he “would not be entirely deprived of opportunities to meet [his] son” in Russia. The interference with his family life with his spouse, a Latvian national, was held to be “commensurate with the interests of the society”. 11. Both decisions mentioned that under section 61(8) of the Immigration Law, an appeal could be lodged with the Prosecutor General’s Office. The decisions became effective on the day they were signed, 26 July 2012, and were sent to the applicants’ declared addresses in Riga. On 3 August 2012 they were expelled from Latvia (see paragraph 23 below). 12. On 3 August 2012 the applicants, through their legal representative, applied to the Administrative Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court to challenge the Minister of Interior’s decision to put their names on the blacklist. On 7 and 9 August 2012 the Senate refused to accept the applicants’ complaints for lack of jurisdiction, indicating that such reviews fell within the competence of the Prosecutor General if the decision had been adopted “on the basis of information obtained as a result of intelligence or counterintelligence”. The decisions also referred to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 6 December 2004 (see paragraph 53 below) which said that the prosecutor’s review as such did not infringe the right of access to court. The Senate’s decision was final. 13. On 20 August 2012 the applicants’ legal representative appealed to the Prosecutor General asking, inter alia, that the decision to put them on the blacklist be revoked and that he be given access to the SAB’s report of 9 and 20 July 2012, which had formed the basis of the Minister of Interior’s decision. On five occasions the appeals were amended to include, inter alia, the allegations that in 1998 the applicants had collaborated with the Latvian State security services in a hostage liberation operation in the Chechen Republic. Later the appeal was amended to include the second applicant’s allegation that subsequently he had refused to cooperate with a SAB officer in relation to certain activities of the leaders of the Chechen community in Latvia, and therefore the expulsion had been instigated in revenge for that. 14. In a reply of 24 September 2012 the Prosecutor General dismissed the request for access to the requested documents. He noted that the possibility to familiarise oneself with information containing State secrets, if necessary with the assistance of specially authorised representatives, as provided in section 65³ of the Immigration Law (see paragraph 51 below), applied only to administrative court proceedings. The Prosecutor General in his reply also stated: “... By envisaging in section 61(8) of the Immigration Law that an appeal against a decision the Minister of Interior adopted on the basis of information obtained in the course of intelligence or counterintelligence activities carried out by a State security institution could be lodged with the Prosecutor General [but] not a court, the legislator wished especially to protect information obtained in the course of intelligence or counterintelligence activities; [granting] access to such information to persons not possessing special permission ... could seriously infringe the work of the State security institutions ... thus seriously impairing national security.” 15. In a final decision of 23 November 2012 the Prosecutor General reformulated the Minister of Interior’s decision of 26 July 2012 (see paragraph 7 above). The part relating to national security grounds was identical in his decisions relating to both applicants and stated: “Having familiarised myself with the results of the review carried out by the Prosecutor [General’s Office] and the information provided in the conclusions and supporting documents, [I] find that the SAB, as a competent State institution, had grounds to consider that [the applicant] had a role in an organised criminal group and [was] one of its leaders, [had] committed or [was] planning to commit a serious or especially serious crime, and [that his] presence in Latvia was a threat to public order and national security as confirmed by the information [obtained by the SAB in the course of counterintelligence activities], which I have verified and examined. Nevertheless, when adopting a decision to include [someone] in the list of aliens prohibited from entering the Republic of Latvia, the Minister must assess whether the behaviour of the foreigner and the nature and scope of information held by the competent institution is sufficient to establish any of the ... conditions set out in section 61(1) of the Immigration law. Having examined the information held by the SAB, [I] consider that [the information] is not sufficient to establish the conditions set out in section 61(1)(1) and (3), [namely] that [the applicant is] acting in an anti-governmental or criminal organisation or [has] a role in such an organisation, and has carried out or is planning to commit a serious or particularly serious crime. At the same time, the nature and scope of the SAB information obtained in the course of counterintelligence activities clearly attest to [the fact] that [the applicant’s] activity is a threat to Latvian national security and public order and safety, as well as a threat to the national security of the States in the Schengen [Area]. The condition set out in section 61(1)(2) has therefore been established, which serves as a basis for the adopted decision to include [the applicant] in the list of aliens prohibited from entering the Republic of Latvia.” 16. The Prosecutor General also dismissed the applicants’ fear that they could be exposed to ill-treatment in Russia due to their alleged involvement in the hostage liberation in 1998, as that involvement remained unconfirmed. In particular, the witnesses questioned had provided controversial submissions, which did not correspond to the testimony of other witnesses, including the statements obtained from the hostages liberated during the operation. In examining the allegations about the risk of ill-treatment after expulsion, the information the Prosecutor General’s Office had obtained from the Border Guard Service and the applicants’ relatives confirmed that on numerous occasions between January 2010 and July 2012 the applicants had entered the Russian Federation, including the Chechen Republic. 17. In relation to the complaint of unlawful activity by a SAB officer, the Prosecutor General noted that the meeting between the SAB officer and the second applicant had been recorded in accordance with the law, and that the second applicant’s allegations were ill-founded. 18. Subsequently, in the light of the Prosecutor General’s decision to reformulate the basis on which the applicants’ names had been put on the blacklist, on 22 August 2013 their legal representative wrote to the Minister of Interior and director of the SAB asking for a review of the decisions to include them in the list. 19. On 25 September 2013 the applicants’ representative received a response from the director of the SAB, stating that his request of 22 August 2013 did not refer to any new circumstances which could serve as a basis for amending or revoking their report to the Minister of Interior in July 2012 (see paragraph 7 above). On 10 October 2013 the Minister of Interior gave a similar reply to the applicants’ representative. 20. In a letter sent to the Court on 21 October 2013 the applicants’ representative brought to the Court’s attention the following: “... [I]n April 2013 the applicants were informed that in an unofficial conversation with a certain high-ranking police officer, [a staff member of the SAB] had stipulated that he would “take care” of any potential complaints the applicants might submit to the Court, and certain politicians would make sure the complaints were not successful. ... The applicants considered this information irrelevant before the above mentioned official information [the Government’s letter] was received.” They further drew the Court’s attention to two questions, the first being how the SAB became aware of their application to the Court, and the second how the application influenced the decisions of the SAB and Minister of Interior. 21. The authorities apprehended the first and second applicants on 31 July and 2 August 2012 respectively. They were both placed in a State Police temporary detention facility. The first applicant met one of his lawyers on the day of his detention, and the other one the following day. The second applicant met his lawyer on the day of his detention. 22. On 2 August 2012 the acting chief of the Riga branch of the State Border Guard Service adopted decisions to expel the applicants from Latvia and to deport them to the Russian Federation. The reason was that the applicants constituted a threat to national security, public order or safety under section 51 paragraph 2 part 4 of the Immigration Law (see paragraph 47 below). The decisions indicated that it was possible to lodge an appeal without suspensive effect to the chief of the Border Guard Service. On the same day both applicants were made aware of the respective decisions. They both appealed (see paragraph 26 below). 23. On the morning of 3 August 2012 the applicants were taken to the Russian border and expelled from Latvia. 24. That afternoon one of the legal representatives sent a fax to, inter alia, the Border Guard Service, asking the applicants not to be expelled to the Russian Federation “because they are possibly agents of the Security Police and their expulsion to the receiving State puts them under threat and they could be subjected to torture”. 25. According to the applicants’ initial submissions to the Court, “five days after their expulsion to the Russian Federation” they were summoned by Chechen police and were questioned about their role in the hostage liberation operation in 1998 before being beaten up. The case file contains an identical certificate for each applicant issued by a Chechen hospital, confirming that on 10 August 2012 both applicants had been found to have concussion, a brain injury and multiple bruises and scratches. The applicants alleged that as a result of what had happened they had had to flee the Chechen Republic and were now hiding in the Russian Federation. 26. The applicants’ representative submitted appeals against the expulsion orders of 2 August 2012 (see paragraph 22 above), complaining, inter alia, of the authorities’ failure to strike a fair balance between the right to respect for their family life and the alleged threat to national security, as required under Article 8 of the Convention. The chief of the Border Guard Service dismissed the first and second applicant’s complaints on 23 and 27 August 2012 respectively. 27. In their appeal to the Administrative District Court of 7 September 2012 the applicants also said that before adopting the impugned decision the Border Guard Service had not heard them, meaning they had not been able to provide information on the possible threat they would face at the hands of the security services after their expulsion to the Russian Federation. 28. On 7 May 2014 the Administrative District Court, in two judgments, upheld the impugned decisions in relation to both applicants. The Administrative District Court established that prior to expulsion the applicants had not approached the Latvian authorities with allegations concerning the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if expelled to the Russian Federation. It also noted that on 2 August 2012 both applicants were informed that the expulsion would be carried out the following day, on 3 August 2012. On the same day one of the applicants submitted a request to the chief of the Border Guard Service asking to be given several impounded goods in custody, but no other requests were made. Both applicants met their lawyers after being detained. 29. The court referred to its well-established case-law and noted that the decisions to put the applicants’ names on the blacklist on national security grounds had been reviewed and upheld by the Prosecutor General, so neither the Border Guard Service nor the administrative court were competent to review the Minister of Interior’s decision. 30. By addressing the complaint that in adopting the impugned expulsion decision of 2 August 2012 the applicants were not heard, the court noted that even if it constituted a minor procedural shortcoming, the lack of hearing of the applicants and witnesses could not have an effect on the outcome of the case. In particular, the court noted that the review of the Minister of Interior’s decision fell outside the scope of the present administrative proceedings. Any information the applicants might have submitted in relation to the adoption of the above decision could not have any effect on the content of the contested decision of 2 August 2012 to expel the applicants. Moreover, the applicants were not prevented, with the assistance of their legal representatives, from communicating to the Border Guard Service any information regarding the alleged interference the impugned decision would have on their family life. 31. The judgments also stated that there were no obstacles for the applicants to enjoy their family life in the Russian Federation. Nor were there any special circumstances to the effect that the family members could not join them outside Latvia. The wife of the first applicant was a Russian national and she would not have any restrictions to travel to the Russian Federation, whereas the second applicant would not encounter any obstacles in meeting outside Latvia his child whose mother was a Russian national. 32. On 3 September 2015 (in relation to the first applicant) and on 5 February 2015 (in relation to the second applicant) the Administrative Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings. The Senate stated, in particular, that the contested expulsion orders were a final stage in the proceedings initiated by the decisions of the Minister of Interior. The Senate further noted that it had been made aware of the decisions of the Minister of Interior and the letters of SAB on which the decision was based, and of the decisions of the Prosecutor General. Review of the above decisions fell outside the scope of the present proceedings, but these decisions attested to the lawful basis and legitimate aim of the applicants’ expulsion. 33. On the question of the proportionality of the interference with the applicants’ family lives, the Senate upheld the lower court’s findings and noted that the applicants had not advanced any arguments indicating any restrictions to enjoy their family life outside Latvia. In relation to the second applicant, the Senate noted that in 2002, while still residing in Russia, he had agreed that the child would reside with the applicant’s former wife, a Russian national, in Latvia. The Senate also stated that both applicants had entered the Republic of Latvia as adults and throughout their stay in Latvia they had not learned Latvian, which showed that their ties with the expelling State were not strong. 34. On 1 August 2012 the acting director of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs decided to withdraw the first applicant’s residence permit and refused to grant the second applicant a temporary residence permit because of their inclusion in the blacklist. 35. The applicants’ legal representative lodged appeals against the above-mentioned decisions on 22 and 28 August 2012 respectively. Two levels of administrative courts dismissed the complaints. 36. On 14 August 2015, the Administrative Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings in relation to the second applicant. The Senate noted, in particular, that the authorities had concluded that the applicant posed a threat to national security, and that depriving him of residence permit served a legitimate aim. The Senate also did not see any reasons why the applicant could not meet his minor child outside the territory of Latvia, especially in the circumstances where already in 2002, while still residing in Russia, the applicant had agreed that the child would reside with his mother in Latvia. 37. The cassation complaint submitted by the first applicant is pending examination before the Senate. 38. On 15 September 2014 the Ombudsman of the Republic of Latvia issued an opinion following the applicants’ complaint concerning their expulsion proceedings. The Ombudsman did not find any violation of Articles 3 or 8 of the Convention. In relation to the review procedure, the opinion stated: “A decision to include someone in the list of foreigners prohibited from entering the Republic of Latvia is adopted by the Senate of the Supreme Court in the form of oral proceedings by a special panel of judges to whom special access to [State] secrets is granted, as well as interpreters, recordkeepers and other court officials to whom such access is also granted. No prima facie legitimate purpose can currently be established for dividing the appellate procedure into the competence of two other institutions, the Supreme Court and Prosecutor General; no further analysis shall follow, however, as the assessment of this issue is not the subject of this case.” 39. The final conclusions, as far as relevant, stated: “Firstly, a breach of Article 13 of the [Convention] and [Article 1 § 1 (a)] of Protocol No. 7 to the [Convention] has been committed in respect of the expelled S.N. and T.D. Once a State holds that not only the Supreme Court but also the Prosecutor General has the right to review a decision to include someone in the list of foreigners prohibited from entering the State, observation of the adversarial principle has to be ensured in the latter process, similar to the process guaranteed in Supreme Court [review cases]. If an alien seeks to contest the decision, defence counsel must be provided who has access to classified information, [State] secrets, and the right to familiarise [himself] with the evidence on which the expulsion of foreigners is based, so that a complaint may be filed for the protection of the interests of the expelled foreigner.” 40. The relevant Articles of the Latvian Constitution (Satversme) provide: “Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until his or her guilt has been established in accordance with the law. Everyone whose rights are violated without justification has the right to commensurate compensation. Everyone has the right to the assistance of counsel.” “Everyone has the right to inviolability of his or her private life, home and correspondence.” “The rights of persons set out [in Article 96] ... of the Constitution may be subject to restrictions in the circumstances provided for by law in order to protect the rights of other people, the democratic structure of the State and public safety, welfare and morals. On the basis of the conditions set forth in this Article, restrictions may also be imposed on the expression of religious beliefs.” 41. Section 18 paragraph 1 part 4 of the Constitutional Court Law provides that an application to the Constitutional Court regarding the initiation of constitutional proceedings must, among other criteria, contain legal reasoning (juridiskais pamatojums). Pursuant to section 19², in addition to the above-mentioned requirements, an individual constitutional complaint must include justification as to how the applicant’s fundamental rights as defined in the Constitution have been infringed upon, and show that all available remedies have been used. 42. Section 20 sets out the grounds on which the panel examining the constitutional complaint may refuse to initiate a case. When examining a constitutional complaint (application) the panel may also refuse to initiate a case where the legal reasoning included in the complaint is evidently insufficient to satisfy the claim (section 20(6)). 43. In a decision of 14 March 2014 (application no. 29/2014) on the question of institution of constitutional proceedings, the panel of the Constitutional Court stated that the legal reasoning of a complaint is an analysis of the content of a legal provision, an explanation as to how the impugned provision interferes with the applicant’s fundamental rights, an assessment of the lawfulness of the procedure according to which the impugned provision has been adopted, and an assessment of the legal aim and proportionality of the interference. 44. On 7 May 2014 (application no. 61/2014) on the question of institution of constitutional proceedings, the panel of the Constitutional Court stated that in support of an allegation that the impugned provision does not comply with the provisions of the Constitution, the applicant must indicate in the legal reasoning (1) whether the contested provision contains any restriction of rights, (2) whether this restriction is prescribed by law and has a legitimate aim and (3) whether the restriction is proportionate to the aim pursued. 45. Under section 46(5) of the Immigration Law, once a decision to include an alien in a blacklist has been adopted by the Minister of Interior and if the person is on Latvian territory, the chief of the Border Guard Service or someone authorised by him must adopt a decision to expel (lēmums par piespiedu izraidīšanu) the person concerned within eight days, to be counted from the date it was established that he or she was on Latvian territory. 46. Section 50(1) provides that an alien has the right to appeal against an expulsion decision within seven days. Under section 50(3), an appeal against a decision taken pursuant to section 46 does not have suspensive effect. 47. Section 51 of the Immigration Law lists the circumstances in which the State Border Guard Service may detain an alien. Paragraph 2 part 4 at the material time, provided that an alien could be detained on grounds of information that a person poses threats to national security, public order or safety. 48. Under section 61(1)(1) the Minister of Interior may decide to include someone who is not a Latvian citizen or a “non-citizen” in a blacklist if, among other things, “competent State institutions have reason to believe” (“kompetentām valsts iestādēm ir pamats uzskatīt”) that he or she (i) is a member of an anti-governmental or criminal organisation or has a role in such an organisation, (ii) is a threat to national security or public order and safety, or (iii) may hinder the pre-trial investigation or work of the law enforcement authorities in investigating the crimes upon arriving in Latvia (section 61(1)(2)), or (iv) has carried out or is planning to carry out a serious or particularly serious crime (section 61(1)(3)). 49. In relation to the review, section 61 at the material time provided as follows: (6) A alien in respect of whom a decision has been taken in accordance with [61(1)] has the right, within one month of becoming acquainted with the decision, to appeal to the Administrative Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia. Submission of an application to the court may not suspend implementation of the decision referred to [in section 61(1)]. The applicant does not have the right to request the court to suspend the operation of such a decision. ... (8) If the decision referred to in section 61(1) has been taken on the basis of information acquired by State security institutions as a result of intelligence or counterintelligence operations, it may be appealed to the Prosecutor General’s Office, whose decision shall be final.” 50. Section 61(6) came into effect on 1 July 2005 and it was introduced after the Constitutional Court had declared unconstitutional a provision providing that decisions adopted by the Minister of Interior were not amenable to review (see paragraph 53 below). Section 61(8) about the Prosecutor General’s Office review came into effect on 10 February 2006. 51. In May 2006 section 653(3) came into force, which provides that if the applicant’s representative does not have a special permit for access to State secrets, the court must appoint as the applicant’s representative for that part of the proceedings an advocate practising in Latvia who has been issued such a permit. If the applicant does not consent to such representation, the court must examine the information associated with official secrets without involving the applicant or his or her representative. 52. Section 63(7) provides that in cases where the period of an entry ban exceeds three years, the institution which has adopted the decision to include an alien in the blacklist shall review it every three years from the date it was taken. 53. The relevant parts of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 6 December 2004 (case no. 2004-14-01) on the compliance of section 61(6) of the Immigration Law with Article 92 of the Constitution read: “10. In conformity with section 61 of the Immigration Law, the opinion of the competent State authorities (in this particular case, the opinion of the State security institution) lies at the basis of the Minister’s [of the Interior] decision. Someone who challenges his or her inclusion in the [blacklist] does not agree, as a matter of course, with the facts expressed in the decision, which are often connected with issues of State security. When reviewing such claims, the use of confidential material may be unavoidable. Even though in cases connected with national security the possibility of legal examination is limited, this does not mean that the national authorities can be free from effective judicial control in all cases, whenever they choose to assert that national security and terrorism are involved (see ECHR Judgment in case “Chahal v. the United Kingdom” § 131). ... If the violation of a person’s rights is the result of the decision of a competent institution (State security institution), on the basis of which the Minister of Interior has adopted the decision, one can agree with the opinion voiced in the letter by the Ministry of the Interior that the person has the possibility of protecting his rights by lodging a complaint to the prosecutor under the procedure set out in Article 6 of the State Security Institutions Law. As regards an assessment of the activity of the State security institution in this case, the State has secured a protection remedy for the individual, which is as effective as possible in circumstances where the issue is connected with State security and, possibly, the use of confidential information. The Constitutional Court in its judgments has already pointed out that “in Latvia the Prosecutor [General’s Office] may be regarded as an effective and available means of protection, because the status and role of the prosecutor in supervising the law secures an independent and impartial review of cases in compliance with Article 13 of the Convention” (see the Constitutional Court October 11, 2004 Judgment in case no. 2004-06-01; April 23, 2003 Judgment in case no.2002-20-0103) Thus, as regards the assessment of the competent (State security) institution, the State has secured effective protection under Article 13 of the Convention. ... 15. ... The fact that the Minister of Interior’s decision might be connected with interests of State security does not prevent the State from establishing a procedure under which the judicial institutions in certain cases, and under a definite procedure, may acquaint themselves with the material connected with State security. The institution concerned may even decide to present the required amount of documents separately if [they] do not include State secrets. Article 6 of the Convention, if read together with Article 5, also provides such a solution by, among other things, a special positive duty upon States, in accordance with which they have to create institutional infrastructures necessary for the implementation of a fair court, and enact legal norms which guarantee that the procedure is fair and impartial. ... The impugned provision thus does not ensure realisation of a person’s right to a fair court as guaranteed by Article 92 of the Satversme”. 54. On 7 October 2010 the Constitutional Court (case no. 2010-01-01) noted that international human rights norms and the practice of their application serve as a means of interpretation at constitutional law level to determine the contents and scope of fundamental rights and the principle of the law-governed State, as far as it does not lead to a decrease or limitation of the fundamental rights included in the Constitution. 55. On 6 November 2014 the Constitutional Court (case no. 2013-20-03) held that the contested provision of the domestic law did not comply with the Constitution and was repealed with effect from 1 May 2015. As regards the individual applicant, in order for him to have the possibility to require repeated assessment of the proportionality of the measure adopted against him, the contested legal provision was repealed with effect as of the date of its adoption.