CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 janvier 2005

.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. 71 January 2005 Tatishvili v. Russia (dec.) - 1509/02 Decision 20.1.2005 Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 Freedom to choose residence Refusal to grant residence registration despite submission of documents required under domestic law: admissible   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Alleged incorrect application of domestic law and arbitrary findings by domestic courts: admissible   The applicant, who is Georgian-born, lives in Moscow and continues to hold citizenship of the former USSR. In 2000, she requested residence registration at a Moscow police station, for which she submitted her USSR passport and a consent form from her flat owner which was certified by the housing maintenance authority. The application was refused. She was orally informed it was because she was not a relative of the flat owner. In the written refusal the reason given was that she had “failed to provide a complete set of documents”. In 2001, the applicant challenged the decision at the District Court, basing her plea on the fact that under the relevant law in force the authorities had no discretion in granting/refusing registration once the appropriate documents had been submitted. The District Court dismissed her claim as she had failed to prove her Russian nationality or her right to move into the flat in question. Her application for a clarification of the judgment was dismissed, as was her appeal with the City Court. The applicant complains that the refusal to grant her residence registration has complicated her daily life and rendered uncertain her access to medical assistance. Admissible under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, Articles 6 and 13. Inadmissible under Article 14.   © 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