SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Applications nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00 by Ilyas Yakubovich TIMISHEV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section) , sitting on 8 July 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr Gaukur Jörundsson , Mr L. Loucaides , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr A. Kovler , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged respectively on 25 February and 9 March 2000,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ilyas Yakubovich Timishev, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Nalchik, in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic of the Russian Federation. The applicant is a lawyer.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is an ethnic Chechen; he was born and lived in the Chechen Republic. On 31 December 1994 his property in the town of Grozny was destroyed as a result of a military operation. Since 15 August 1996 the applicant has been living in Nalchik as a forced migrant.

In 1997 the applicant applied for permanent residence registration in Nalchik. His application was refused with reference to the local laws of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic prohibiting former residents of the Chechen Republic to obtain permanent residence in Kabardino-Balkaria. The refusal of the local authorities was upheld by the Nalchik City Court ( Нальчикский городской суд ) on 19 September 1997 and the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic ( судебная коллегия по гражданским делам Верховного Суда Кабардино-Балкарской республики ) on 23 October 1997.

1. Alleged denial of access to a court

On 26 December 1999 the applicant received compensation for the property lost in Grozny in the amount of RUR 120,000. This was the maximum amount of compensation established by Regulation no. 510 of the Russian Government “On the procedure for the payment of compensation for the loss of dwellings and/or property to citizens who have suffered losses as a result of the crisis in the Chechen Republic and who moved permanently out of it”. Pursuant to this regulation, the applicant was also required, in exchange for the compensation, to abandon his residence in the Chechen Republic.

The applicant filed a complaint against Regulation no. 510 with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ( Верховный Суд РФ ) . He contended, in particular, that the establishment of a maximum amount of compensation contradicted his right to have the damage compensated in full, and the requirement to abandon his residence impaired his right to liberty of movement.

On 24 December 1998 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ruled that regulations issued by the Government of the Russian Federation must be subject to judicial review. As this matter is explicitly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and the commercial courts, the court found that a complaint against a regulation should be adjudicated by a court of general jurisdiction. On this ground, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow which had territorial jurisdiction over the seat of the Russian Government.

On 7 June 1999 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint as follows:

“...[T]he Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ruled that, pending the adoption of the [special] constitutional law, courts cannot review compliance of regulations of the Government of the Russian Federation with any hierarchically superior legal acts (excluding the Russian Constitution)...”

Since the applicant’s complaint invited the court to address contradictions between Regulation no. 510, on one hand, and federal laws and presidential decrees, on the other hand, the court refused to rule on the merits of the complaint.

On 8 October 1999, following the applicant’s appeal, the Civil Chamber of the Moscow City Court ( судебная коллегия по гражданским делам Московского городского суда ) upheld the ruling of 7 June 1999.

2. Alleged denial of the right to liberty of movement

On 19 June 1999 the applicant travelled by car from the town of Nazran, located in the Ingushetia Republic of the Russian Federation, to the town of Nalchik, located in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic of the Russian Federation.

At about 3 p.m. the applicant’s car was stopped at check-point “Urukh” on the border of the Ingushetia and Kabardino-Balkaria Republics. Officers of the State Inspectorate for Road Safety of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic ( ГИБДД МВД КБÐ ) refused entry to the applicant, referring to an oral instruction of the Ministry of Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria not to admit persons of Chechen ethnic origin into the territory of Kabardino-Balkaria.

The applicant had to turn round and take a detour of 300 kilometres to reach Nalchik through a different check-point.

The applicant complained to a court about the unlawful acts of police officers and requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

On 25 August 1999 the Nalchik Town Court found that, by an order of the head of the State Inspectorate for Road Safety of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, in force as of 2 p.m. on 19 June 1999, the police had been instructed to enforce a stricter control of vehicles and passengers at check-points. The court questioned the officers who had been on duty on 19 June 1999. They maintained that, on that day, stricter controls had resulted in a long line of waiting cars and people; the applicant’s car had attempted to overtake the queue, but had been refused priority treatment; the applicant had not been denied entry because of his ethnic origin. Moreover, on the same day, over seventy buses with Chechen passengers had been allegedly admitted. The court noted that anyway the applicant had gained admission into the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic through a different check-point. The court concluded that there had been no violation of the applicant’s right to liberty of movement and dismissed the complaint.

On 21 September 1999 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic upheld, on the applicant’s appeal, the judgment of 25 August 1999. The court pointed out that the burden of proof was on the applicant, who had failed to show that he had been denied entry because of his ethnic (Chechen) origin.

On 5 October 1999 and 26 January 2000 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic refused the applicant’s requests for supervisory review.

The applicant also complained to the Ombudsman and Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation.

On 1 February 2000 a prosecutor of the Main directorate for the North Caucasus of the Prosecutor General’s office ( прокурор отдела Главного Управления Генеральной прокуратуры РФ на Северном Кавказе ) informed the applicant that, following a verification of the facts, the prosecutor’s office had instructed the Ministry of the Interior of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic to remedy the violations of the Russian Constitution committed by officers of the State Inspectorate for Road Safety, and to take measures to avoid their repetition in the future. However, on 12 July 2000 Mr Volodin, head of a department in the office of the Ombudsman, wrote to the applicant:

“As it follows from the response of the Prosecutor General’s office, the restriction of the constitutional rights of citizens to freedom of movement on the border of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic was effected in connection with the threat of penetration of subversive groups of armed bandits into its territory and the restriction was only effective for a short period of time. Pursuant to Article 56 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the said restriction is legitimate.”

Further, on 3 March 2000 Lieutenant-General Shoguenov, the Minister of the Interior of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, forwarded the summary of the results of an internal check to a human rights activist who had lodged complaints on behalf of the applicant. The summary bore no date and it was signed by Colonel Temirzhanov, deputy head of the internal security department of the Ministry of the Interior, confirmed by Colonel Kerefov, head of the internal security department, and approved by the Minister of the Interior himself. The summary established:

“When questioned... by employees of the prosecutor’s office of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, Kh. [the officer who stopped the applicant] explained that at a staff meeting, before taking over his duty, he had received an oral instruction from the shift commander M. not to allow persons of Chechen ethnic origin travelling by private cars from the Chechen Republic to enter the territory of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic. M. justified his giving such an instruction by reference to a similar oral instruction that he had received from the deputy head of the public safety police of the Ministry of the Interior, Colonel Efendiyev...

On 25 August 1999... the Nalchik City Court decided to dismiss [the applicant’s] complaint because the [police] officers who had initially maintained that they had not let the said persons enter the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, pursuant to an oral instruction by Colonel Efendiyev, started to insist before the court that [the applicant and his driver] had wanted to pass the check-point without waiting in line, had been refused and left...”

The summary then went on to praise the achievements of local police officers on duty at check-points who had seized large quantities of weapons, drugs, counterfeit money, etc., and had detained many wanted persons. Colonel Temirzhanov concluded:

“1. Information on the prohibition of entry into the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic by officers at the Urukh check-point to [the applicant and his driver] on the ground of their ethnicity... shall be considered untrue on the basis of legally binding court judgments in the matter.

2. Because of their low moral and professional qualities, which became apparent when they gave contradictory statements to the Ombudsman, the Prosecutor’s office and the City and Supreme courts of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic concerning the circumstances of the prohibition of entry to [the applicant and his driver], officers of the State Inspectorate for Road Safety, M. and Kh., should be subject to disciplinary liability. However, having regard to the fact that the [applicant’s] complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated by the Nalchik Town and Supreme Courts, M. and Kh. are to be discussed at a meeting of the heads of the State Inspectorate for Road Safety and the measures taken shall be reported to the internal security department.”

The summary concluded with the recommendation to avoid similar situations in the future, impairing the constitutional rights of citizens.

3. Refusal to grant child support benefits

As of 1 April 1998 the applicant started paying taxes and social contributions in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic. Subsequently he applied to a social security office for child support benefits for his children. His application was refused by the Ministry of Labour and Social Development of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic with reference to the fact that the applicant had no permanent residence registration in the town of Nalchik, which made him ineligible for such benefits. The applicant appealed to a court.

On 18 February 2000 the Nalchik Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court found that the law on state support for citizens with children, governing the procedure for payment of child support benefits, provided that payments had to be effected in the locality where the parent resided. Since the applicant had no residence registration in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, he had no entitlement.

On 21 March 2000 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic quashed the judgment of 18 February 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The court pointed out that the lower instance had failed to take into account that every parent who is a citizen of the Russian Federation should be entitled to child support benefits at the place where he lived and official residence registration could not be a condition precedent for the payments.

On 23 August 2000 the Nalchik Town Court again dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court established that the substantive right of the applicant to receive child support benefits was undisputed, but the applicant had failed to obtain a residence registration, pursuant to relevant regulations, and had refused to give any explanations on this matter before the court, claiming that this issue was immaterial for the determination of his claim. According to the court, the burden of proof was on the applicant, and the latter had failed to show that he was eligible for child support benefits in the town of Nalchik.

On 12 September 2000, on the applicant’s appeal, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic upheld the judgment of 23 August 2000.

4. Alleged denial of the right to education

Between September 1998 and May 2000 the applicant’s 9 year old son and 7 year old daughter attended secondary school no. 8 in Nalchik.

On 24 December 1999 the applicant received compensation for the property he had lost in the Chechen Republic. In exchange for compensation, the applicant had to surrender his migrant’s card ( миграционная карта ), a document confirming his lawful residence in Nalchik and his status as a forced migrant.

On 1 September 2000 [1] the applicant’s son and daughter went to the school, but they were refused admission because the applicant could not produce his migrant’s card. The director of the school agreed to admit the children “informally”, but he advised the applicant that the children would be immediately suspended, should the education department become aware of this arrangement.

On 4 September 2000 the applicant complained to a court about the refusal of the Education and Science Department of Nalchik ( Департамент образования и науки Администрации г. Нальчик , “the Department” ) to admit his children to school. The Department replied that, since 24 December 1999, the applicant had had no lawful grounds to remain in Nalchik and that his requests amounted to an encroachment on the lawful rights of other children because school no. 8 had been severely overcrowded even without the applicant’s children.

On 1 November 2000 the Nalchik Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint:

“[The applicant] and his family members reside in the town of Nalchik without [an appropriate residence registration]. In these circumstances his requests to admit his children to school no. 8 are unsubstantiated...

According to a certificate produced by the director of school no. 8, as of 11 October 2000 the school was teaching 459 children, whilst being designed to accommodate 230...”

The court used these arguments to dismiss the applicant’s complaints as unsubstantiated.

On 21 November 2000, on the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic upheld the judgment of 1 November 2000.

5. Refusal to issue an international passport

In November 1999 the applicant applied to the Registration and Visas Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic ( ОВИР МВД КБÐ ) for an international passport, the identity document which entitles Russian citizens to leave the country and travel abroad. His application was refused with reference to an instruction of the Passports and Visas Service of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation ( Паспортно-визовая служба МВД РФ ) of 17 September 1999, pursuant to which the processing of applications and the issue of international passports to Russian nationals who have residence registration in the Chechen Republic, or who have previously resided there, was suspended.

On 7 March 2000 the applicant renewed his application for an international passport. This time the application was accepted and the passport delivered on 20 July 2000.

The applicant seized a court with a request to declare unlawful the instruction of 17 September 1999 that had allegedly restricted his constitutional right to leave the territory of the Russian Federation. On 8 September 2000 the Nalchik Town Court granted the applicant’s request. The court also pointed out that the instruction had expired on 31 January 2000.

The applicant then brought an action against the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, which he had allegedly suffered as a result of the restriction.

On 21 December 2000 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s action. The court agreed that the applicant had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of a restriction on his constitutional rights. However, the Ministry of the Interior could not be held liable for the restriction. According to the court, following several terrorist attacks in September 1999, the Government of the Russian Federation had instructed the Ministry of the Interior to identify and isolate terrorist groups, especially those with international connections. The instruction of 17 September 1999 was issued as a result. The court concluded:

“Under Article 6 of the Federal Law on the Fight against Terrorism of 25 July 1998, the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation is in charge of the fight against terrorism within its jurisdiction; however, an instruction imposing a restriction on the citizens’ rights protected by the Constitution (in particular, Article 27 § 2) was beyond the competence of the Ministry of the Interior; nevertheless, the court considers that the Ministry of the Interior is not liable for the restriction on the applicant’s right freely to leave the Russian Federation because such restriction had been effected in the interests of the State and for a short period of time and, therefore, the action shall be dismissed.”

On 28 June 2001, on the applicant’s appeal, the Civil Chamber of the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 21 December 2000.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. Constitution of the Russian Federation of 12 December 1993

Article 19 provides for the equality of all before the law and courts of law, and equality of rights and liberties.

Article 27 provides that everyone lawfully within the territory of the Russian Federation shall have the right to move freely and choose his or her place of stay or residence. It further provides that everyone shall be free to leave the territory of the Russian Federation.

Article 43 provides that everyone shall have the right to education. Secondary education in State and municipal educational institutions shall be accessible to all and free. Parents shall ensure that their children receive secondary education.

Article 46 guarantees to everyone the judicial protection of his or her rights and freedoms. Decisions and acts (or omissions) of State and municipal authorities can be appealed to a court.

Article 53 provides that everyone shall have the right to compensation for damage caused by the unlawful acts (or omissions) of State authorities or their officials.

Article 56 provides that, in a state of emergency, rights and freedoms may be restricted for the protection of national security and the constitutional foundations. The state of emergency may only be declared in accordance with a federal constitutional law.

2. Ruling of the Constitutional Court

On 16 June 1998 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation delivered Ruling no. 19-P on the interpretation of certain provisions of Articles 125, 126 and 127 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The court ruled that courts of general jurisdiction and commercial courts can review the compliance of regulations legally subordinate to federal laws with laws and regulations legally superior to them, with the exception of the review of their compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. However, this power of review shall be established in a federal constitutional law describing the review procedure. In the absence of such a law, courts may not declare unlawful or set aside regulations legally subordinate to federal laws.

3. Compensation for loss of property

On 16 November 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ruled as follows in case no. GKPI 00-1224 on the lawfulness of the restrictions on the amount of compensation for loss of property established by Regulation no. 510:

“The established rights to compensation are [a form of] complementary protection for the rights of citizens of the Russian Federation to social benefits, and they do not provide for compensation for lost dwellings and property in the full amount.

The right to social benefits does not deprive a citizen of the right to the protection of his or her property and non-property rights in accordance with civil and family law.”

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the refusal of domestic courts to deal with his complaint against the Government regulation establishing the procedure for compensation for loss of property.

2. The applicant complains that the Government regulation establishing the maximum amount of compensation for lost property, and requiring him to abandon his residence in the Chechen Republic as a condition precedent to receiving compensation, violated his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

3. The applicant complains that the refusal to admit him into the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic on 19 June 1999 violated Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, read alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

4. The applicant complains that the refusal to grant him child support benefits, and the subsequent court decisions upholding that refusal, violated his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

5. The applicant complains about a violation of his children’s right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

6. The applicant complains under Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the decision of domestic courts whereby the violation of his constitutional right to leave the Russian Federation freely was left without redress.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the decisions of the domestic courts, in refusing to rule on the compatibility of a Government regulation with the general provisions of the Civil Code and presidential decrees, denied him the right to a fair hearing.

Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”

At the outset the Court notes in the present case that it was open to the applicant to exercise two rights. First, the applicant had a right to receive compensation for lost dwellings and property under the administrative procedure established by Regulation no. 510. Secondly, under the general tort provisions of the domestic civil law, the applicant could claim full compensation for the damage he had allegedly sustained.

The applicant, in the course of the administrative procedure for compensation under Regulation no. 510, received the maximum amount of compensation. However, the applicant did not lodge a civil action for compensation for the amount of damage over and above the maximum figure prescribed by Regulation no. 510. Instead, he chose to challenge Regulation no. 510 itself, apparently acting on the assumption that it barred his access to compensation in full. That he erred in his assessment of this aspect was subsequently demonstrated by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which on 16 November 2000 noted that the right to social benefits did not limit access to a court in respect of ordinary tort claims (see the Relevant Domestic Law section above).

With this background in mind, the Court must determine whether Article 6 § 1 applied to the proceedings which the applicant did initiate. Article 6 in its civil limb applies only where “civil rights and obligations” are “determined” within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium , judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, § 46; Ringeisen v. Austria , judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, § 94).

The Court notes that the scope of the applicant’s claim was restricted to a declaration of invalidity of a Government regulation and the applicant did not claim any specific amount of compensation, to which he believed he was entitled. Therefore, whatever the outcome of the claim, no award of a pecuniary nature would have been made to the applicant by the domestic courts. Nor would a positive decision on the claim affect the scope of the applicant’s rights because his right to claim compensation in full had not been restricted by the challenged regulation. In the absence of any apparent link with the compensation which the applicant was trying to obtain, the Court is not prepared to accept that the proceedings, which the applicant did bring, “determined” any of his “civil rights and obligations”.

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

2. The applicant next complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about insufficient compensation being paid to him in respect of the loss of his property in 1994 in the Chechen Republic.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provides as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law...”

However, the Court notes that it was open to the applicant to institute separate civil proceedings and claim compensation in the full amount. It appears that the applicant did not do so and he has not shown that he was unable to.

It follows that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

3. The applicant complains, under Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 14 of the Convention, about the refusal to admit him to the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic at the “Urukh” check-point, allegedly on the ground of his Chechen ethnic origin.

Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention provides as follows:

“1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.  ...

3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public , for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

4. The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society.”

Article 14 of the Convention provides as follows:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

4. The applicant further complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about his inability to receive child support benefits, for which he was eligible under domestic law. The applicant also complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, cited above, that the rulings of the domestic courts, upholding the refusal of local authorities to pay him these benefits, impaired his right to a fair hearing.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provides as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

5. Finally, the applicant complains that his children were denied the right to education, guaranteed under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and that he was denied the right to leave his own country, contrary to Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provides as follows:

“No person shall be denied the right to education...”

Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention provides as follows:

“2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the alleged restriction on his right to liberty of movement under Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 14 of the Convention, the refusal of child support benefits under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, an alleged violation of his children’s right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and an alleged restriction on his right to leave his own country under Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President

[1] After the summer break the school year starts uniformly in all Russian schools on 1 September.