THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 47495/11 Olga Valeryevna ANANIYEVA and Dimitr ANANIYEV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Peeter Roosma, President, Dmitry Dedov, Andreas Zünd, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 47495/11) against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 June 2011 by Ms Olga Valeryevna Ananiyeva, who is a Russian national born in 1969, and Mr Dimitr Ananiyev, who holds Russian and Bulgarian nationalities and who was born in 1999, both of whom live in the village of Zelenets of the Republic of Komi (“the applicants”);

the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”), represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the then Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office;

the decision of the Bulgarian Government not to exercise their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention);

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant, a minor who was a Bulgarian national at the time. They have been living in the village of Zelenets, the Republic of Komi since 2002. On 4 August 2010 the migration authorities issued the second applicant with a migrant’s card. His place of residence was registered at his grandmother’s address in Zelenets but in reality he regularly stayed with his aunt or mother, who both lived in the same village.

2 . Under the Migration Act (Law no. 109-FZ of 18 July 2006) the first applicant as a host of a foreign national was obliged to notify the migration authorities of any changes in his address within two days, either in person or by post (“the notification requirement”). In September 2010 the migration authorities visited the second applicant’s registered place of residence and found out that he did not live there. The authorities fined the first applicant 2,000 Russian roubles under Article 18.9 § 4 of the Code of Administrative Offences for failing to comply with the notification requirement.

3. The domestic courts dismissed the first applicant’s complaint against the above decision. They pointed out that domestic law obliged a foreign national’s change of place of residence to be reported to the authorities, which the first applicant had failed to do.

4. On 18 May 2011 the second applicant was granted Russian citizenship.

5. The applicants complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that by imposing a fine on the first applicant for letting her minor son regularly stay with other family members, the domestic authorities had unduly interfered with their right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

6. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to comply with the six-month rule. In the alternative, they did not suffer any significant disadvantage because the amount of fine imposed on the first applicant was not substantial and because the administrative conviction had no negative impact on her. The applicants disagreed.

7. It is not necessary to examine the objections raised by the Government because the applicants’ complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

8. It is undisputed that administrative sanctions imposed on the first applicant for her failure to report the change in the second applicant’s place of residence constituted an interference with the right to liberty of movement under Article 2 of Protocol no. 4 (see Bolat v. Russia , no. 14139/03, § 66, ECHR 2006 ‑ XI (extracts)). Furthermore, the impugned measures were based on the relevant provisions of the Migration Act and the Code of Administrative Offences (see paragraph 2 above). They pursued the legitimate aim of “maintenance of ordre public” within the State’s immigration policy which embodies various rules on border crossing, registration and residence of foreign nationals.

9. As to proportionality of interference, the Court should examine whether it was “necessary in a democratic society” (see Garib v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 43494/09, § 100, 6 November 2017). The second applicant’s status as a foreign national entailed an obligation to comply with reasonable formalities within the national system of migration control, including the notification requirement. The domestic rules in that regard were sufficiently clear and foreseeable as to their effects. The obligation to respect the notification requirement had been in effect until the second applicant successfully obtained a Russian passport. During that period (less than a year in the present case) he remained free to travel in Russia or abroad or to take up residence wherever he wished under the condition of reporting his new residence to the authorities. Moreover, it was not argued that the second applicant had been prevented from exercising his other rights, including access to medical care, social security or pension (see, a contrario , Tatishvili v. Russia , no. 1509/02, § 44, ECHR 2007 ‑ I, where the applicant claimed that the refusal by the authorities to certify her residence at a chosen address had rendered uncertain her access to medical care).

10. As to the first applicant, her failure to comply with the domestic migration rules resulted in the administrative conviction which did not entail any adverse consequences for her other than one-time payment of a moderate fine (compare with Ioviţă v. Romania (dec.), no. 25698/10, §§ 72 ‑ 75, 07 March 2017, where the applicant’s right to use her passport for travelling abroad was suspended for several months). The issue of the first applicant’s administrative liability was examined by two levels of jurisdiction, during which she was able to present her arguments. The domestic courts found that there had been a change of place of residence by the second applicant which the first applicant had failed to report. Their interpretation in that regard does not appear to be arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, the Court’s power in that regard being limited (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 149, 20 March 2018, and Mkrtchyan v. Armenia , no. 6562/03, § 43, 11 January 2007).

11. Overall, the Court does not find that the interference with the applicants’ right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence has been disproportionate in the circumstances (compare with Valkeajärvi v. Finland (dec.), no. 34015/14, § 34, 1 December 2015). It follows that the application is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 December 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Olga Chernishova Peeter Roosma Deputy Registrar President