CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 février 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 March 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 65805/17 Kostyantyn Oleksiyovych MELNIKOV against Ukraine lodged on 30 August 2017 communicated on 28 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a denial to certify the applicant’s residence at a chosen address by the domestic authorities. It raises an issue Article 2 § 1 of Protocol 4 to the Convention. Following the purchase of an apartment, the applicant applied to the registration department of the local council to have his place of residence registered at his new address and provided a complete set of documents, including his military service card in which it was noted that he had been deregistered from the military register at his former place of residence. On 31   January 2017 the authorities refused to register the applicant at his new place of residence on the ground that he had not submitted all necessary documents. They noted, in particular, that the applicant’s military service card bore no record confirming that he had been registered at the local military enlistment office at his new address. The applicant challenged the refusal before the domestic courts arguing that there had been no legal basis for a restriction on   his right to obtain the residence registration in his flat. He submitted that neither the Law on liberty of movement and freedom to choose place of residence within Ukraine nor the Regulations on the procedure for registration of place of residence, approved by the Government Resolution of 2   March 2016 no. 207 in order to implement the above ‑ mentioned law, contained a requirement to submit a proof of the registration at a local military enlistment office among the documents necessary for the registration at his place of residence. In their observations on the applicant’s claim the local council contended that the restriction imposed on the applicant was provided for by the Regulations on organizing and maintaining military registration of conscripts and persons liable for military, approved by the Government   Resolution of 7 December 2016 no. 921. According to those regulations, the relevant authorities can register the place of residence of persons liable for military service only if their military registration documents contain a record of the district military commissariats on deregistration or registration at the place of residence. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s claim having upheld the position of the local authorities. The applicant complains under Article 2 § 1 of Protocol 4 to the Convention that the authorities’ refusal to certify his residence at his address by making such registration dependent on his registration at a military enlistment office constituted a restriction of his right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence which was neither lawful nor necessary in a democratic society. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence, guaranteed by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol   No.   4? If so, was the restriction justified in the meaning of paragraphs 3 and   4 of that Article (see, mutatis mutandis , Tatishvili v. Russia , no. 1509/02, §§   47-54, ECHR 2007-I)?