Communicated on 12 May 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 2543/12 Yelena Borisovna MALYGINA and Ilgam Azadovich BURNAYEV against Russia lodged on 26 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Yelena Borisovna Malygina and Mr Ilgam Azadovich Burnayev , are Russian nationals, who were born in 1969 and live in Malino , the Moscow Region. They are represented before the Court by Ms R.P. Zakatova , a lawyer practising in Stupino , the Moscow Region.

A. The circumstances of the case

1. Acquisition of Russian citizenship

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

The applicants were born in Tashkent, at the time the Soviet Socialist Republic of Uzbekistan.

In 1985 both applicants were issued with Soviet passports.

In 1990 and 1991 respectively the first and second applicant were accepted at the Tashkent Paediatric Medical University.

In 1994 the applicants started a family.

Before graduation the applicants, along with other students, were required to surrender their Soviet passports. According to the applicants, the university administration threatened withhold their diplomas if they failed to do so. Accordingly, the applicants surrendered their Soviet passports and were issued with Uzbekistani passports in 1996 and 1997 respectively.

In 1997 the applicants graduated from the university and soon started working as doctors.

In 2000 they applied to the Russian Consulate in Tashkent to be granted Russian citizenship.

On 19 June 2000 the Russian Consulate in Tashkent provided the applicants with certificates to the effect that their applications for Russian citizenship had been granted.

On 20 April 2002 the applicants registered their marriage.

On 25 October 2002 the applicants moved to Russia. They obtained temporary residential registration at the address of the first applicant ’ s sister in the Moscow Region.

On 30 December 2002 the Russian Consulate in Tashkent again provided the applicants with certificates to the effect that their applications for Russian citizenship had been granted.

At the end of 2002 the applicants applied for Russian internal passports, having presented certificates issued by the Russian Consulate in Tashkent. After the Russian authorities conducted a check, they informed the applicants of the favourable outcome.

On 30 May 2003 the applicants were issued with Russian passports. As they noticed a misprint in the second applicant ’ s patronymic, he was issued a corrected passport on 11 June 2003.

Later in 2003 the applicant ’ s son was born.

On 14 December 2004 the applicants ’ son was issued with a certificate attesting that he was a Russian citizen.

In 2003 the applicants were employed by the Malino District Hospital and provided with a flat on the basis of the social tenancy agreement.

The first applicant worked at the hospital between 2003 and 2005. She was subsequently transferred to a specialised clinic for patients with visual impairment, where she worked until 2007. Since 2007 she has been working at the Mikhnevo District Hospital.

The second applicant worked at the Malino District Hospital between 2003 and 2010. Since 2010 he has been working at the Mikhnevo District Hospital.

2. Seizure of Russian passports

In 2010 the Malino Federal Migration Service (FMS) conducted an inquiry into acquisition by the applicants of Russian citizenship.

On 3 August 2010 the FMS issued two reports in respect of the applicants. The reports stated that in 2003 the applicants had applied for Russian passports having presented a certificate of 19 June 2002 issued by the Russian Consulate in Tashkent to the effect that they had acquired Russian citizenship. However, according to the results of the inquiry the applicants were not registered in the database of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as persons who had acquired Russian citizenship. Furthermore, upon request of the Federal Security Service, the Russian Consulate in Tashkent submitted that the applicants were not registered in the diplomatic and consular agencies as persons who had been granted Russian citizenship. The reports concluded that the applicants should be considered to never have acquired Russian citizenship and that their Russian passports should be invalidated.

On 20 September 2010 the second applicant ’ s passport and on 10 October 2010 the first applicant ’ s passport were seized.

On 10 November 2010 the Stupino District FMS sent a request to the Stupino District Administration to cancel the applicants ’ residential registration and to terminate the social tenancy agreement with respect to the flat they were living on the ground that the applicants and their son were not Russian citizens.

The applicants appealed to a court contesting the FMS reports of 3 August 2010 as well as invalidation and seizure of their Russian passports.

On 22 April 2011 the Stupino Town Court dismissed their claim. The court upheld the findings of the FMS reports of 3 August 2010 to the effect that the databases checked did not contain any information about them as persons who had acquired Russian citizenship. It attached more weight to this fact that to the certificates of the Russian Consulate in Tashkent of 19 June 2000 and 30 December 2002 produced by the applicants.

The applicants appealed.

On 28 June 2011 the Moscow Regional Court dismissed the appeal.

3. Administrative proceedings against the applicants

On 11 November 2010 the Mikhnevo FMS found the applicants responsible for an administrative offence on account of the fact that, being foreigners, they did not have a work permit in Russia.

On 15 November 2010 the Mikhnevo FMS imposed on the applicants a fine on account of the above administrative offence.

On 3 February 2011 the Stupino Town Court set aside the decision of 15 November 2010.

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 that the withdrawal of their Russian passports deprived them of their constitutional rights. In particular, without a Russian passport they could neither find a different employment nor travel and were running a risk of administrative penalty.

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?