CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 5 octobre 2006

.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 } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   560 5.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BOLAT v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Bolat v. Russia (application no. 14139/03).   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; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens) to the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 8,000   euros for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Hacı Bayram Bolat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Kapaklı (Turkey).   Between 1998 and 2003 the applicant lived in Russia on the basis of a long-term residence permit. His residence permit contained details of his registered place of residence and the permit’s expiry date, 4 August 2003.   On 11 December 2002, in the course of a police spot check, the applicant was found staying overnight at a friend’s flat. On the same day, the police issued a decision imposing a fine on him for residing at his friend’s flat without registering that address. He complained to Nalchik Town Court, which dismissed his complaint. He then applied for supervisory review of the judgment to the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria.   On 30 May 2003 the Passports and Visas Department annulled the applicant’s residence permit on the ground that he had repeatedly violated the residence regulations (he had been fined once before for breaching residence regulations) and ordered the applicant to leave Russia within 15 days. Nalchik Town Court however 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.   On 8 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria, in supervisory review proceedings, set aside the decision of 11 December 2002 and the Town Court’s judgment. It noted in particular that the Town Court required proof that the applicant had only been a guest at his friend’s flat and that that ran contrary to the presumption of innocence. It also noted that the administrative charge against the applicant had been examined by an officer of the police station having no territorial jurisdiction over the area in which the applicant’s friend lived and that that fact alone had rendered the sanction unlawful. The Supreme Court discontinued the administrative proceedings against the applicant.   On 28 October 2003 Nalchik Town Court, in view of the finding of the Supreme Court, declared the decision of 30 May 2003 annulling the applicant’s residence permit void and ordered that the applicant’s residence permit be extended for five years.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 April 2003 and declared partly admissible on 8 July 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained, in particular, about a violation of his right to liberty of movement and that the domestic authorities had failed to respect the statutory procedural safeguards during his deportation. He relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   7. Decision of the Court   Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 The Court established that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to liberty of movement in that he was obliged, under threat of administrative sanctions, to register any change of address with the police within three days.   The Court then observed that the Supreme Court, using an extraordinary remedy, set aside the police decision of 11 December 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 that the courts had shifted the burden of proof onto the applicant in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence. It was therefore acknowledged that the impugned measure was not in accordance with the law. The Court therefore found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 As regards the applicant’s expulsion, the Court noted that, although Russian law required a judicial decision for expulsion of a foreign national, no such order was issued for the applicant’s expulsion. Indeed, the applicant was expelled at the time when his complaint about the annulment of his residence permit was being reviewed and the interim measure indicated by the Town Court for the period necessary for the review was effective. It followed that the decision to expel the applicant was not taken in accordance with law and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.     ***   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 European Convention on Human Rights, 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.