Today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against Croatia, which violated the rights of a stateless man who was expelled from the country after the security service deemed him a national security threat. The judgment addressed the delicate balance between national security interests and the procedural rights of aliens under international human rights law.
The applicant is a former stateless individual and later a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, from Croatia. He had lived in Croatia since childhood and applied for Croatian citizenship. However, the application was rejected following a negative security assessment by the national intelligence agency. Subsequently, the applicant was expelled from Croatia on grounds of national security, a decision for which substantive reasons were not provided, as they were based on classified information.
The applicant challenged the decisions at various levels of the Croatian judicial system, including the Constitutional Court, all of which upheld the expulsion and the denial of citizenship. The applicant then approached the ECHR, alleging a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which concerns the procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens.
In its judgment, the ECHR examined the compatibility of the Croatian government’s actions with the Convention’s safeguards. It focused on the lack of disclosure of reasons for the applicant’s expulsion and the consequent impact on the ability to challenge the decision effectively. The Court underscored the significance of procedural rights and the need for their protection, even in the context of national security.
The ECHR found that while states have a margin of appreciation in national security matters, the procedural limitations imposed on the applicant were not sufficiently counterbalanced by the Croatian authorities. The Court observed that the applicant was not provided with the factual basis for the assessment that posed a national security threat, which constituted a significant limitation of procedural rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.
The ruling is significant for several reasons. First, it reinforces the principle that while states may have legitimate national security concerns, these do not grant carte blanche to bypass international human rights obligations. Second, the judgment emphasizes the importance of providing individuals with sufficient information to understand and respond to allegations against them, especially in expulsion proceedings.
The Court also addressed the applicant’s other allegations under the Convention, including conditions of detention and interference with private and family life, but deemed it unnecessary to examine these separately due to the overarching findings. The ECHR awarded the applicant 5,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and an equal amount for costs and expenses.
The judgment in Applicant v. Croatia by the ECHR serves as a crucial reminder to states of their obligation to balance national security measures with the procedural rights of individuals. It underscores the role of the ECHR in upholding human rights standards and ensuring that national security does not become a blanket justification for rights violations. This case will undoubtedly influence future legal discourse on the intersection of national security and human rights, particularly in the context of the expulsion of aliens. The case is F.S. v. Croatia.
