CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 février 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   121 22.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TATISHVILI v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Tatishvili v. Russia (application no. 1509/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the European Convention on Human Rights; and a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 15   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage (as compensation for an administrative fine she had to pay), EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Larisa Artemovna Tatishvili, was born in 1939 in Georgia. She continued to hold citizenship of the former USSR until 31 December 2000 when she became a stateless person. She currently lives in Moscow.   On 25 December 2000 Ms Tatishvili applied to the “Filevskiy Park” Police Station passport department for a flat in Moscow to be registered as her place of residence. She produced her USSR passport, a consent form signed by the flat-owner, proof of payment of house maintenance charges, an extract from the resident’s list and an application form for residence registration.   Having been told by the director of the passport department that her application could not be processed because she was not a relative of the flat-owner, Ms Tatishvili challenged the refusal before Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow.   On 13 February 2001 the district court dismissed Ms Tatishvili’s claim referring, in particular, to the provisions of the Civil and Housing Codes which regulated municipal-tenancy agreements, and emphasising the fact that there was no family relationship between the applicant and the flat-owner. It also held that the applicant had failed to prove her Russian citizenship or confirm her intention of obtaining it, pointing out that a “treaty” between Russia and Georgia provided for visa-based exchanges.   On 5 March 2001 the district court accepted certain amendments to the hearing record, which reflected Ms Tatishvili’s argument that the provisions of municipal-tenancy could not be applied to her situation because the flat was privately owned and the flat-owner had no objection to her registration.   On 19 March 2001 Ms Tatishivili appealed, complaining, in particular, that she had never held Georgian citizenship, making a visa requirement 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.   Ultimately, Moscow City Court reiterated the district court’s findings and, not addressing the appeal arguments, dismissed the applicant’s claim on account of her failure to prove her Russian citizenship or to provide documents confirming her right to move into the flat in question.   Not being formally registered a resident prevented Ms Tatishvili from exercising fundamental social rights, by, for example, hindering her access to medical assistance, social security, an old-age pension, and preventing her from possessing property and marrying.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 December 2001 and declared partly admissible on 20 January 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, the applicant complained about the domestic authorities’ arbitrary refusal to certify her residence at a chosen address, substantially complicating her daily life and rendering uncertain her access to medical care. The applicant also complained about the unfair judicial proceedings concerning her claim and, in particular, that the courts had not applied domestic laws correctly, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Decision of the Court   Article 2 of Protocol No. 4   The Court accepted that Ms Tatishvili, a “citizen of the former USSR” at the relevant time, had been lawfully present in Russia, such that Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 was applicable.   That being so, the Court considered that there had been interference with Ms Tatishvili’s right to liberty of movement, as the law required her to have her place of residence registered by the police within three days of moving in and, that being refused, she had been exposed to administrative penalties and fines. It also prevented Ms Tatishvili from exercising certain fundamental social rights.   The Government’s justification for that interference was based on Ms Tatishvili’s presence in Russia being unlawful, and the fact that she had not produced a complete set of documents, also an arbitrary argument because the applicant had submitted over and above the required documents. Indeed, the Court found that it had never been specified which documents exactly were missing and that, if the application had been incomplete, it had been up to the authorities to provide clear instructions on how to rectify it.   The Court also paid special attention to the interpretation in 1998 by the Russian Federation Constitutional Court of the regulations for registering residence, in which it found that it would be unconstitutional if the registration authority did not certify a person’s request for living at a given address, noting, in particular, that that authority should not have discretion to review submitted documents’ authenticity or their compliance with Russian laws. The Court observed, however, that the binding interpretation of the Constitutional Court appeared to have been disregarded by the domestic authorities in the applicant's case.   In those circumstances, the Court found that the interference with Ms Tatishvili’s freedom to choose her residence was not “in accordance with law” and held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.   Article 6 § 1   The Court reiterated that Article 6 § 1 obliged courts to give reasons for their judgments.   The Court observed that Ms Tatishvili’s complaint was dismissed, firstly, because the district court considered that her right to move into the flat was in dispute even though the flat-owner’s consent was proved and acknowledged by that same court, and secondly, because the domestic courts relied on a “treaty” between Russia and Georgia on visa requirements, which didn’t actually exist, the visa requirement for Georgian citizens, in fact, not having been introduced by a treaty.   Furthermore, the Court found it inconsistent that the district court relied on a “treaty” governing the conditions of entry and residence of Georgian citizens, when it had not been proved that the applicant was indeed Georgian. No evidence to that effect had been produced either in the domestic proceedings or before the Court. The Court further noted that Moscow City Court had endorsed the District Court's findings in a summary fashion, without reviewing the arguments in the applicant's statement of appeal.   Accordingly, the Court considered Dorogomilovskiy District Court’s reasoning and the Moscow City Court’s subsequent endorsement of it on appeal without giving proper reasons of its own, to be manifestly deficient, and that the requirements of a fair trial had not been fulfilled. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.