Communicated on 12 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 32811/17 Aleksandr Anatolyevich KOMOLOV against Russia lodged on 17 April 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Komolov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr V.A. Loskutov , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

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

On 10 December 2013 the Zelenogradskiy District Court, Moscow (“the District Court”), awarded 6,493.500 Russian roubles (RUB) to the Ministry of Finance to be pa id by the applicant and RUB 40, 667 for the reimbursement of legal costs, also to be paid by the applicant. The judgment of 10 December 2013 entered into force on 14 April 2014.

On 8 July 2014 the District Court issued a writ of execution.

By a ruling of 12 September 2014 the bailiffs ’ service initiated enforcement proceedings. The applicant was invited to voluntarily comply with the judgment debt within five days of the date on which he received a copy of that ruling.

On 18 September 2014 a copy of that ruling was sent to the applicant by a registered post. The applicant alleged that he had never received a copy of that ruling.

On 7 November 2014 the bailiff issued the ruling restricting the applicant ’ s right to leave the country for a period of six months on the grounds that the applicant had not paid the judgment debt. The applicant alleged that he had not been notified of the travel restrictions imposed on him.

On 19 November 2014 the bailiff attached the applicant ’ s property (several plots of land and a house).

On 2 January 2015 the applicant, who was allegedly not aware of the travel restrictions, decided to travel to Thailand to undergo a medical treatment, but was stopped by border guards as he was attempting to board the plane.

On 25 June 2015 the applicant challenged in court the bailiff ’ s ruling of 7 November 2014. He submitted, in particular, that he had not been informed of the enforcement proceedings initiated on 12 September 2014 and of the travel restrictions imposed on him.

On 17 July 2015 the District Court examined and dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint.

On 10 November 2015 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) upheld the judgment of 17 July 2015.

On 9 June 2016 a judge of the City Court refused to refer the applicant ’ s cassation appeal to the cassation court.

On 20 September 2016 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the applicant ’ s cassation appeal to the civil chamber of the Supreme Court.

On 14 April 2017 the applicant ’ s representative received a copy of the decision of 20 September 2016.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that his right to leave the Russian Federation was violated by a ban imposed by the bailiffs ’ service.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was any restriction placed on the applicant ’ s freedom to leave Russia, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 (see Gochev v. Bulgaria , no. 34383/03 , §§ 44-57, 26 November 2009, and Khlyustov v. Russia , no. 28975/05 , § § 92-102, 11 July 2013 ) ? In particular:

(a) Did the travel ban imposed on the applicant pursue any legitimate aim?

(b) Did the authorities (bailiffs ’ service or other) duly notify the applicant of the enforcement proceedings initiated on 12 September 2014 and a restriction on travel abroad imposed on him on 7 November 2014? The Government are requested to provide copies of those notifications, if any, with evidence confirming that the applicant had received them.

(c) What measures did the bailiffs ’ service take to recover the debt from the applicant before imposing the travel ban on him and after they had imposed it on him?

(d) Were the bailiffs ’ orders to impose the travel ban on the applicant duly reasoned?

(e) Did the scope of the judicial review of the bailiffs ’ orders to impose a travel ban on the applicant satisfy the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?

2. In the light of the answers to the above questions, was there a violation of the applicant ’ s freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?