CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 2 February 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 47495/11 Olga Valeryevna ANANIYEVA and Dimitr ANANIYEV against Russia lodged on 8 June 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The first applicant, Ms Olga Valeryevna Ananiyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1969. The second applicant, Mr Dimitr Ananiyev, who was born in 1999, holds both Russian and Bulgarian nationalities. The applicants live in the village of Zelenets of the Syktyvdinskiy District, the Republic of Komi. They are represented before the Court by Mr   E.A.   Mezak, a lawyer practising in Syktyvkar. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant. The first applicant was married to a Bulgarian national. The couple resided in Bulgaria. In 1999 the second applicant was born; the parents opted for a Bulgarian nationality for their child. In September 2002 the applicants moved from Bulgaria to Russia. In 2003 the first applicant’s husband left the family and returned to his home country. The first and second applicants stayed in Russia in the village of Zelenets. In 2010 the first applicant’s permanent place of residence was registered at her mother’s address in the village of Zelenets, however, she in fact lived in her partner’s home in the same village. The first applicant’s sister lived at another address in the same village. Given a rather small size of the village of Zelenets and babysitting arrangements, it was agreed between all parties concerned that the second applicant constantly moved between the three homes spending equal shares of his time at his grandmother’s, at his aunt’s and at his mother’s partner’s respective homes. On 4 August 2010 the Komi Department of the Federal Migration Authority (“the Komi FMS”) issued the second applicant who at that time did not hold a Russian nationality and was thus a foreign national residing in Russia with a special migrant’s card. On 6 August 2010 the authorities registered the second applicant’s place of residence at his grandmother’s address. On 9 September 2010 the Komi FMS found that the first applicant had committed an administrative offence punishable under Article 18.9 § 4 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences (“Failure to comply with a foreigner’s host’s duties in relation to the migration control”) and imposed a fine of 2,000 Russian roubles (RUB) on her. The applicant challenged the Komi FMS’s decision before a court. On 9 November 2010 the Syktyvdinskiy district court upheld the Komi   FMS’s decision of 9 September 2010. On 8 December 2010 the Supreme Court of Komi upheld the district court’s judgment. In 2011 the second applicant obtained Russian nationality. COMPLAINT Referring to Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the applicants complain that, by imposing a fine on the first applicant for letting her minor son regularly stay with other family members, the domestic authorities had unduly interfered with their right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of movement on account of the decision of 9 September 2010 by the migration authorities to fine the first applicant? If so, was the interference “in accordance with the law”? Did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 3 of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4? Was it “necessary in a democratic society” (see Timishev v. Russia , nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, §   45, ECHR   2005 ‑ XII, and Bolat v. Russia , no. 14139/03, § 67, ECHR   2006 ‑ XI (extracts))?