CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mars 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 3 April 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 64723/16 Davyd Yosypovych ROYZEN against Ukraine lodged on 6 December 2016 communicated on 16 March 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an allegedly unlawful refusal of the Migration Service to issue the applicant an identity document enabling him to travel abroad (“external passport”). The refusal was based on the applicant’s failure to pay the “service fee” and the “cost of the passport form”. Despite the fact that the domestic courts, following a claim by the applicant, found the refusal unlawful, since the payments requested by the State Migration Service had not been provided for by law, and obliged the authorities to re-examine the applicant’s application, the authorities continued refusing the applicant to issue the external passport on the same grounds as before. On 7 December 2016, after the applicant had paid the fees demanded by the authorities, he was issued the external passport. The applicant complains that the refusal of the Ukrainian authorities to give him the identity document enabling him to travel abroad was unlawful and infringed his right to leave his own country enshrined in Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4, restricted in the presence case in view of the repeated refusals of the Migration Service to issue him an identity document enabling him to travel abroad until he paid the “service fee” and the “cost of the passport form”? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   2 §   3 of Protocol No.   4?   The Government is requested to provide the relevant documents, including a copy of the letter of the Khmelnytsky regional department of the State Migration Service no. 07/20565/1 of 25 December 2015 by which the applicant’s request for a passport was rejected anew, after the final decision in the applicant’s favour had been taken on 23 July 2014.