CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Communicated on 1 September 2020 Published on 21 September 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 21276/20 Aleksey Mikhaylovich SEDYKH against Russia lodged on 29 April 2020 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Aleksey Mikhaylovich Sedykh, is a Russian national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Voronezh. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     Since 2011, the applicant had been an officer of the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN). He was granted “secret” security clearance (Form   2) for the performance of his duties. His right to leave Russia had not initially been restricted and he had frequently travelled abroad for tourism. 4.     In 2014, the management of the FSIN, citing “a complex international situation following the admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the international sanctions”, issued a recommendation against all international travel by its officers. 5.     On 19 October 2018 the applicant took early retirement. He was asked to countersign a document, according to which the head of his department had restricted his right to leave Russia for a period of one year starting from 31   July 2018, the date on which he had last had access to top secret documents. 6.     On the same date the applicant asked the chief of the directorate to waive the restriction on the grounds that he wished to visit his ailing uncle, a Russian and Finnish national, who lived in Finland. On 17 December 2018 he received a response. His application for a waiver had been considered, and a five-year restriction on his right to leave Russia had been applied. 7.     The applicant complained to a court. In his view, the restriction was arbitrary because his right to travel abroad had not been restricted up until 2014. It could not be justified by reference to the nature of the “top secret” information to which he had had access. That information concerned crime prevention and prison management, it might have been useful to local criminal syndicates but had no value for foreign intelligence services. 8.     On 28 March 2019 the Voronezh Regional Court dismissed the complaint. It found that the applicant had signed a non-disclosure agreement and should have been aware that his right to leave Russia would be restricted for up to five years. Two witnesses from the security department of the applicant’s former employer had stated before the court that the restriction had been applied “with regard to the nature and relevance ( характер и актуальность ) of information” to which the applicant had had access. The applicant’s uncle was not a “close member of his family” and had been mentioned for the first time in the application for a waiver. Since the uncle had a Russian nationality in addition to his Finnish one, he could come to Russia to visit the applicant. 9.     In his grounds of appeal, the applicant complained that the Regional Court had failed to examine the specific nature of the information to which he had had access or assess the substantive grounds for the restriction. He referred to the Court’s findings in the cases of Bartik v. Russia (no.   55565/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ XV) and Berkovich and Others v. Russia (nos.   5871/07 and 9 others, 27 March 2018). 10.     On 19 July 2019 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the appeal in a summary fashion. On 31 October 2019 a judge of the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal to the review instance. 11.     In parallel proceedings, on 24 April 2019 the Interagency Commission for applications concerning restrictions on right to leave Russia upheld the validity of the restriction on the applicant’s right to travel abroad until 31   July 2023. COMPLAINT 12.     The applicant complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention of an unjustified restriction on his right to leave Russia.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Bartik v. Russia , no.   55565/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ XV; and Berkovich and Others v. Russia , nos.   5871/07 and 9 others, 27 March 2018)?