The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Babych v. Ukraine, concerning a travel ban imposed on the applicant due to his failure to repay a debt. The Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to freedom of movement. The applicant had been prohibited from leaving Ukraine since 2013, following a court decision related to his debt. Despite the applicant obtaining Romanian citizenship and being able to cross the border on several occasions, the travel ban remained in force. The Court emphasized that the restriction was not sufficiently justified and could not be reconsidered before the debt repayment, thus violating the applicant’s right to leave the country.
The decision is structured around the applicant’s complaints regarding the violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) and Article 8 (right to family life) of the Convention. The Court first addresses the admissibility of the complaints, declaring the complaint regarding freedom of movement admissible and the one regarding family life inadmissible. It then assesses the alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, referencing similar cases and concluding that the travel ban was not justified or proportionate. The Court also dismisses the complaint under Article 8, noting that the applicant’s family’s relocation occurred after the imposition of the ban and that they were aware of the consequences. The decision concludes with a statement that the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the principles regarding restrictions on freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. The Court emphasizes that any interference with a person’s right to leave their country must be justified and proportionate from the outset and throughout its duration. The decision highlights that obtaining another nationality and occasional border crossings do not automatically remedy an unjustified travel ban. This case underscores the importance of ensuring that travel restrictions are regularly reviewed and are proportionate to the circumstances, especially in cases involving debt repayment. **** This decision has implications for Ukraine, requiring its authorities to ensure that travel bans are justified, proportionate, and subject to review, particularly in the context of enforcement proceedings.
