Article 15 - Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work
Article 48 - Presumption of innocence and right of defence
Key facts of the case:
I.L.A., a long-serving customs officer, challenged the termination of their employment following a 2018 amendment to the Customs Act (Закон за митниците). The amendment prohibited customs officers from holding their positions if they were charged with a crime, even if the case had not yet resulted in a final conviction. The applicant’s employment was terminated in April 2019 after being charged in a criminal case, despite the presumption of innocence. The applicant argued that the legal change violated their fundamental right to work and the presumption of innocence, as guaranteed by both Bulgarian and European Union law. After the termination, the applicant sought compensation for lost wages and other damages, asserting that the amendment disproportionately restricted their right to freely choose their profession, in violation of the Bulgarian Constitution and EU law, particularly the EU Charter. The Constitutional Court later declared the amendment unconstitutional in 2019, agreeing that it excessively restricted individuals' rights without allowing for due process. Based on this ruling, the applicant pursued damages against the state. The court ultimately awarded them compensation for lost wages, recognising that the unconstitutional law unjustly deprived them of their livelihood. However, their claim for additional performance-based benefits was rejected, as they were not actively working during the relevant period.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The key legal question that the Court had to address was whether the State, through the parliament, could be held liable for damages caused by the enforcement of a law that was later declared unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the amendment to the Customs Act (Закон за митниците), which provided for the termination of the employment of customs officers charged with crimes, violated the applicant’s fundamental rights to work and the presumption of innocence under both Bulgarian and European Union law. The court also considered whether the State’s legislative action, in passing this amendment, created a direct obligation to compensate those affected by the unconstitutional provision. This raised questions about the State's responsibility to ensure that laws are in conformity with constitutional standards and EU law, and about the extent to which individuals harmed by unconstitutional legislation are entitled to reparation. Another key issue was whether a causal link existed between the unconstitutional law and the damages suffered by the plaintiff, such as loss of wages and career opportunities. The Court had to decide if the termination of the applicant’s employment, based on a criminal charge without a conviction, constituted a disproportionate restriction of their fundamental rights, and whether this justified compensation for their lost income and professional standing. Ultimately, the court's task was to balance the principles of State sovereignty in legislative actions with the protection of individual rights guaranteed by the constitution and EU law.
Outcome of the case:
In terms of factual outcome, the Court ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that their employment had been wrongfully terminated due to an unconstitutional legal amendment. As a result, the Court awarded them compensation for lost wages from the date of their employment termination in April 2019 until June 2022. The applicant’s claim for additional performance-based benefits was dismissed because, during this period, they had not been working and thus had not met the criteria for such compensation. The judgment reaffirmed the applicant's right to compensation for the financial harm caused by the wrongful application of the law but limited it to lost wages. Regarding the assessment of the legal questions, the Court noted that the State could indeed be held liable for damages caused by an unconstitutional law. The Court found that the amendment to the Customs Law (Закон за митниците), which provided for the termination of employment of customs officers charged with crimes, violated fundamental rights to work and the presumption of innocence.
[The applicant] submits that the right to work is guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU Charter), and that the amendment adopted by the parliament in Art. 10, Par. 1, Item 2 of the Customs Act contravenes the provision of Article 15(1) of the EU Charter, which provides that 'everyone has the right to work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation', as well as Articles 48 and 52 of the EU Charter, Articles 6(2) and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016, on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right of persons to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings.
…
[The defendant] submits that the reliance on the EU Charter and the ECHR is unfounded. The EU Charter should only be applied in compliance with Article 51(1) of the Charter, according to which its provisions apply to Member States only when they apply EU law.
The applicant's complaint is that the statutory provision which served as the basis for the termination of their employment is in breach of the provision of Article 15(1) of the EU Charter, according to which everyone has the right to work and to exercise a freely chosen or accepted profession. The freedom to choose one's profession, enshrined in Article 15(1) of the EU Charter is a reflection of Article 1(2) of the European Social Charter of 18 October 1961, ratified by Bulgaria, obliging the Member States to ensure the effective exercise of the right to work by effectively protecting the right of the worker to acquire their means of subsistence through an occupation freely chosen. The Charter is part of the Lisbon Treaty, in force since 1 December 2009, and therefore forms part of the primary legislation of the EU, and the rules of primary legislation have immediate applicability in national law and direct effect, which should ensure the protection of subjective rights. It is therefore the duty of the State to organise and ensure the implementation of the EU law. Pursuant to Article 48(1) of the EU Charter, every accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the law. This principle is enshrined in Article 6(2) ECHR, ratified by the Republic of Bulgaria in 1992. The adoption of Art. 10, Par. 1, Item 2 of the Customs Act violated the EU law by infringing both the presumption of innocence and the free right to choose one's profession. The emergence and existence of a professional relationship after the adoption of Art. 10, Par. 1, Item 2 of the Customs Act is conditional on the absence of an indictment for a general offence. This means that, even before the presumption of innocence has been rebutted, the private individual is denied the free right to choose a profession. Separately, the obstacle to the creation and existence of the employment relationship is defined as accusation of any offence of a general nature, without considering the significance and gravity of the offence allegedly committed for the holding of the post.
„[Ищецът] Навежда твърдения, че правото на труд е гарантирано в Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз /ХОПЕС/, като приетата от НС промяна в чл. 10, ал. 1, изр. второ ЗМ противоречи на разпоредбата на чл. 15, § 1 ХОПЕС, която предвижда, че „всеки има право да работи и да упражнява свободно избрана или приета професия“, както и на чл. 48, и чл. 52 ХОПЕС, чл. 6, ал. 2 и чл. 8 от Конвенцията за защита на правата на човека, и основните свободи, както и на Директива (ЕС) 2016/343 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 9 март 2016 г., относно укрепването на някои аспекти на презумпцията за невиновност и на правото на лицата да присъстват на съдебния процес в наказателното производство.“
„[Ответникът] Сочи, че позоваването на ХОПЕС и на ЕКЗПЧОС е неоснователно. ХОПЕС следва да се прилага само при съобразяване на чл. 51, ал. 1 от Хартата, съгласно който, нейните разпоредби се отнасят за държавите-членки единствено когато прилагат правото на ЕС.“
„Оплакването на ищеца е, че законовата разпоредба, послужила като основание за прекратяване на служебното му правоотношение е в нарушение на нормата на чл. 15, пар. 1 ХОПЕС, според която, всеки има право да работи и да упражнява свободно избрана или приета професия. Свободата при избор на професия, прогласена в чл. 15, пар. 1 ХОПЕС е отражение на чл. 1, пар. 2 от Европейската социална харта от 18.10.1961 г., ратифицирана от България, поставяща в задължение на държавите-членки да осигурят ефективното упражняване на правото на труд, като защитават ефективно правото на работника да придобива средствата си за издръжка чрез професия, която е избрал по свободна воля. Хартата е част от Договора от Лисабон, в сила от 01.12.2009 г., поради което представлява част от първичното законодателство на ЕС, а нормите на първичното законодателство имат непосредствена приложимост в националното законодателство и директен ефект, който следва да осигури защита на субективните права. Поради това, задължение на държавата е да организира и гарантира изпълнението на ПЕС. Съгласно чл. 48, т. 1 ХОПЕС, всеки обвиняем се счита за невинен до установяване на вината му в съответствие със закона. Този принцип е залегнал в чл. 6, пар. 2 ЕКПЧ, ратифицирана от Република България през 1992 г. С приемането на чл. 10, ал. 1, изр. 2 ЗМ е допуснато нарушение на ПЕС, като са нарушени както презумпцията за невиновност, така и свободното право на избор на професия. Възникването и съществуването на служебно правоотношение след приемането на чл. 10, ал. 1, изр. 2 ЗМ е поставено в зависимост от липсата на повдигнато обвинение в извършването на престъпление от общ характер. Това означава, че още преди да е оборена презумпцията за невиновност, с влязла в сила осъдителна присъда, на частноправния субект е отречено свободното право на избор на професия. Отделно, като пречка за възникване и съществуване на служебното правоотношение е повдигането на обвинение в каквото и да е престъпление от общ характер, без да е отчетено значението и тежестта на евентуално извършеното за заемане на длъжността.“