CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juillet 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 66 July 2004 Bolat v. Russia (dec.) - 14139/03 Decision 8.7.2004 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 Expulsion of an alien Forced deportation on the basis of an administrative sanction later declared unlawful: admissible The applicant, who is a Turkish national of ethnic Kabardinian origin, lived in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic on the basis of a long-term residence permit. In 2000, his permit was lost or stolen. He obtained a new one with validity until 2004, although the security services had recommended to grant him only a short-term permit as the circumstances surrounding the loss had not been clear enough. In December 2002, the applicant was spending the night at a friend’s house. The police entered the flat and took him to a police station, where he was charged with the offence of not residing at his registered place of residence and a fine was imposed on him. The applicant complained to the courts, which found he had not committed an administrative offence. However, following the quashing by the Supreme Court of the original judgment, the sanction was confirmed. In May 2003 the prosecutor, on the basis of the sanction (and a previous breach of residence regulations by the applicant) requested that the applicant’s residence permit be annulled and that he be expelled. In August 2003, despite the fact that the execution of the expulsion order had been stayed pending a decision on supervisory review, members of the security services wearing face masks handcuffed the applicant and placed him on a flight to Istanbul. In October 2003, the Supreme Court found that the sanction had been unlawfully imposed on the applicant and confirmed that he could reside in Russia on lawful grounds. The applicant has requested measures to remedy the violations but has received no response to date. Admissible under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7: Despite the Supreme Court’s decision of October 2003, the applicant had not been afforded adequate redress in terms of monetary compensation nor had his forceful removal from Russia been examined by the Russian courts. He could therefore still claim to be a victim. Inadmissible under Articles 5, 6 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.   © 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