CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 février 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 94 February 2007 Tatishvili v. Russia - 1509/02 Judgment 22.2.2007 Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 Freedom to choose residence Refusal by the authorities to register the applicant as resident at her home address: violation   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Failure by domestic courts to give reasons for their decisions: violation   Facts : The applicant was born in Georgia, but was a citizen of the former USSR until 31 December 2000 when she became stateless. She lived in Moscow at the material time. Pursuant to legislation and regulations introduced in the 1990s persons residing in Russia were under a general duty under the Propiska (internal registration) system to register themselves as resident at any address where they intended to stay for more than ten days. A failure to register could result in a fine and the loss of access to social rights such as medical assistance, social security or an old-age pension. However, a ruling by the Constitutional Court in 1998 made it clear that registration was a purely formal process and that upon presentation of an identity document and a document confirming the right to reside at the chosen address, the registration authority was under an obligation to register the person concerned as resident at the address stated. On 25   December 2000 the applicant applied to the passport authorities to have a flat in Moscow registered as her place of residence, but was told that her application could not be processed. She challenged that decision in a district court, which dismissed her claim on the grounds that she was unrelated to the flat owner and therefore not entitled to take up occupation under the law governing multiple-tenancy agreements and that she was subject to visa requirements under a treaty between Russia and Georgia. She appealed to a city court, arguing in particular that she had never held Georgian citizenship, so that a visa requirement was inappropriate in her case, and that, in any event, residence regulations applied uniformly to everyone lawfully residing within the Russian Federation irrespective of their citizenship. The appellate court upheld the district court’s findings without addressing the arguments advanced in the applicant’s grounds of appeal. Law : Article   2 of Protocol No. 4 – The Government’s submission that the applicant was not “lawfully within the territory of a State” had no legal and/or factual basis, as at the material time the applicant was a “citizen of the former USSR”, not a Georgian national or stateless person, and so did not require a visa or residence permit: applicable . The authorities’ refusal to certify her residence at the chosen address amounted to interference as it prevented her from exercising various fundamental social rights while exposing her to administrative penalties and fines. The only justification the Government had offered for the interference was that the applicant was unlawfully resident in Russia, but the Court had already rejected that argument with regard to applicability. It was also noted in that connection that the Constitutional Court’s authoritative ruling that the registration authority had a duty to certify an applicant’s intention to live at the specified address and no discretion to review the authenticity of the submitted documents or their compliance with law appeared to have been disregarded by the domestic authorities in the applicant’s case. The interference was therefore not “in accordance with law”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   6(1) – The district court had failed to give any reasons for finding that a dispute existed between the applicant and the flat owner or for holding that the municipal-tenancy provisions of the relevant codes should apply to the applicant’s situation. Further, it had relied on the submissions of the passport department in finding that the applicant was subject to a visa requirement without checking whether the alleged treaty between Russia and Georgia in fact existed or giving any reasons for its assumption that the applicant was a Georgian citizen. The inadequacy of the district court’s reasoning had not been correctedby the city court, which had simply endorsed its findings in summary fashion, without reviewing the arguments in the applicant’s statement of appeal. Accordingly, the requirements of a fair trial were not fulfilled. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 15 for pecuniary and EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes