Communicated on 28 June 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 32802/09 Oksana Yevgenyevna NENICH and others against Russia lodged on 5 May 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Seizure of the Russian passport

The first applicant was born in Dushanbe, at the time the Soviet Socialist Republic of Tajikistan.

In July 1989 she was issued with a Soviet passport.

In 1991 the first applicant moved to Russia. First she lived in Orenburg and in 1993 moved to Kolomna.

In 1995 she gave birth to the second applicant.

In 2000 the first applicant bought part of a house. Subsequently she and the second applicant were registered there.

On 18 November 2000 the first and second applicants were issued with an insert for the Soviet passport (“ вкладыш ”) specifying that they were citizens of the Russian Federation.

On 18 May 2002 the first applicant was issued with a Russian internal passport. The passport included information about her residential registration and the second applicant.

On 5 June 2004 the first applicant gave birth to the third applicant. The information about him was also included in her passport.

In August 2007 the first applicant divorced.

In June 2008 she applied for benefits as a single mother. The list of documents to be submitted included a certificate from her place of residence.

On 1 July 2008 the first applicant applied for the certificate to the Kolomna Federal Migration Service (FMS). An official of the Kolomna FMS asked her to present her passport, and when she did, it was seized as unduly issued. The first applicant ’ s request to provide her with a document corroborating that the FMS was competent to seize her passport was refused.

On 2 July 2008 the first applicant had an appointment with the head of the Kolomna FMS. He explained that her passport had been seized because, according to a report of 18 April 2008 on a check conducted by the FMS, it had been unduly issued. The first applicant ’ s request to provide her with a copy of the report was refused.

On 1 August 2008 the Kolomna prosecutor ’ s office rejected the first applicant ’ s complaint.

2. Court proceedings

The first applicant complained to a court.

On 1 December 2008 the Kolomna Town Court found for the first applicant and held that the actions of the Kolomna FMS had been unlawful. The court found that the FMS had seized the first applicant ’ s passport in breach of the applicable procedure. In particular, no competent agency took a decision to revoke her Russian citizenship and, furthermore, it was not established by the courts that she had submitted false documents to obtain it.

On 27 January 2009 the Moscow Regional Court quashed that decision on appeal, upheld the FMS ’ arguments and dismissed the first applicant ’ s complaint.

3. Subsequent developments

On 3 February 2009, when the second applicant turned fourteen and according to the applicable laws had to be issued with a passport, her request in this respect was refused on the ground that she was not a Russian citizen.

On 7 May 2009 the Moscow Region FMS issued the first applicant with a temporary identity card where it was noted that she was not a Russian citizen.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice see Dzhalagoniya v. Russia , no. 33330/11, communicated on 19 December 2013.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain about the seizure of the first applicant ’ s passport and de facto revocation of their Russian citizenship. The first applicant contends that without a valid passport neither she nor her children, the second and third applicants, can exercise their fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of movement and the right to education. Furthermore, without the passport she cannot either find an employment or receive social benefits. The applicants rely on Article 8 of the Convention .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? ( see Smirnova v. Russia , nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 97, ECHR 2003-IX ).

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

Appendix