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 } Communicated on 1 September 2020 Published on 21/09/2020     THIRD SECTION Application no. 23908/20 Oleg Aleksandrovich POPOV against Russia lodged on 16 June 2020 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Oleg Aleksandrovich Popov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Burkov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicant had been a career officer in the Ministry of the Interior since 1991, initially in the Rostov Region and later in Moscow. During his service, he had travelled abroad extensively for tourism and family visits, and also to receive treatment in Israeli and German clinics for his heart condition. In 2013, he was issued with a travel passport valid for ten years. His most recent work contract, dated 8 July 2015, contained a non-disclosure clause but did not mention any restriction on his right to leave Russia, whether actual or future. On 23 March 2016 the applicant retired. He has since then been practising law as a member of the Moscow Bar. 4.     On 13 March 2017 the human-resources department of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant that the directive restricting the right of the Ministry staff to leave Russia (see Tobolich v. Russia , no. 10845/20, § 4) did not apply to him since he had already retired. In response to the applicant’s further queries, on 12 and 23   May and 20 September 2017 the head of the general services unit of the Severo-Vostochniy District Police Department in Moscow confirmed that his access to confidential information had ceased in 2016 and that his right to leave Russia had not been restricted. The applicant continued to travel extensively in 2016-18; he submitted a copy of his passport containing Schengen and UK visas and border crossing stamps. 5.     On 8 May 2018 the applicant arrived to London from Moscow. He was stopped by immigration officers at the Gatwick airport and questioned. His travel passport was taken away from him on the grounds that the Interpol National Bureau of the Russian Ministry of the Interior had recorded it as “lost or stolen” in the Interpol passports database. The applicant maintained that his passport had never left his possession. 6.     The applicant’s passport was sent to the Consular Department of the Russian Embassy in the United Kingdom. On 25 May 2018 the consul returned it to the applicant who went back to Moscow on 2 June 2018. 7.     On 13 June 2018 the Severnyy District Police Department in Moscow informed the applicant that his travel passport had been recorded as “invalid” pursuant to an undated decision by the Main Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior by which his right to leave Russia had been restricted until 15 January 2021. As it subsequently transpired, additional decisions restricting the applicant’s right to leave Russia had been issued by the Severo-Vostochniy District Police Department on 20 July 2016, 25   July 2017 and 15 June 2018 and by the Moscow City Police on 5   September and 4 October 2018. The most recent decision which annulled and replaced the previous ones was issued by the head of the Main Directorate of the Moscow City Police on 30 October 2018. It restricted the applicant’s right to leave Russia until 25 December 2020. 8.     The applicant repeatedly petitioned the Ministry of the Interior to lift the restriction on humanitarian grounds. He wished to visit his family in the United States and continue his medical treatment in Germany. On 29   November 2018 the Interagency Commission for the Protection of State Secrets, to which the applicant also applied, upheld the restriction but recommended the Moscow City Police to consider allowing the applicant one visit to the heart clinic in Munich, Germany. It appears that the recommendation has not been followed through. 9.     On 12 March 2019 the Koptevskiy District Court in Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint of a refusal to issue him with a travel passport, finding that all officials had acted within their competence. On 4   July 2019 the judgment was upheld by the Moscow City Court. On 18   October 2019 and 31 January 2020 the City Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, refused him leave to appeal to the cassation instance. COMPLAINT 10.     The applicant complains under Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention about an unlawful and 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)?