CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 octobre 2006

.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. 90 October 2006 Bolat v. Russia - 14139/03 Judgment 5.10.2006 [Section I] Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 Freedom of movement Freedom to choose residence Fine unlawfully imposed on foreigner for his failure to register his changed whereabouts: violation   Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 Expulsion of an alien Expulsion in the absence of a judicial decision albeit such was required by domestic law: violation   Facts : Between 1998 and 2003 the applicant, a Turkish national, lived in Russia on the basis of a long‑term residence permit due to expire on 4 August 2003. In 2002 the police imposed a fine on him for residing at his friend’s flat without having registered that address as his place of residence. In May 2003 the Passports and Visas Department annulled the applicant’s residence permit on the ground that he had repeatedly violated residence regulations. He was ordered to leave Russia within 15 days but a town court stayed the execution of that order pending the Supreme Court’s decision on his request for supervisory review. On 7 August 2003 several officers of the Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Security Service, some of them masked, entered the applicant’s flat, handcuffed him and placed him on a flight to Istanbul. The officers did not identify themselves or produce a search or deportation warrant. In October 2003 the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria set aside the police decision of 2002 as well as the town court’s judgment of 2003 and discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. It noted in particular that the town court had required proof that the applicant had only been a guest at his friend’s flat, such a requirement running contrary to the presumption of innocence. Moreover, the administrative charge against the applicant had been examined by a police officer with no territorial jurisdiction over the area in which the applicant’s friend had been living. That fact alone had rendered the sanction unlawful. The town court subsequently ordered that the applicant’s residence permit be extended for five years. Law : Article   2 of Protocol No. 4 – There had been an interference with the applicant’s right to liberty of movement in that he had been obliged, under threat of administrative sanctions, to register any change of address with the police within three days. The Supreme Court, using an extraordinary remedy, had set aside the police decision of 2002 and the subsequent judicial decisions on the grounds that the matter had been examined by a police officer acting in excess of his powers and as the courts had shifted the burden of proof onto the applicant in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence. The impugned measure had not therefore been in accordance with the law. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   1 of Protocol No. 7 – Although Russian law required a judicial decision for expulsion of a foreign national, no such order had been issued for the applicant’s expulsion. Indeed, he had been expelled at the time when his complaint about the annulment of his residence permit had remained under review and a stay of enforcement of his expulsion had remained in effect. It followed that the decision to expel him had not been taken in accordance with law. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 8,000 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