Новости судебных дел
Судебное дело "Карпачева и Карпачев против России (нарушение статьи 2 Протокола 4 к Конвенции)"
14 May 2008 FIRST SECTION Application no. 34861/04 by Elena KARPACHEVA and Maksim KARPACHEV against Russia lodged on 28 August 2004 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicants, Ms Elena Alekseyevna Karpacheva and Mr Maksim Vladislavovich Karpachev, mother and son, are Russian nationals who were born in 1958 and 1981 respectively and live in Ozersk, a closed town in the Chelyabinsk Region where the Mayak nuclear fuel reprocessing plant is located and where the second applicant permanently resided before his conviction in 2002. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 5 August 2002 the Ozersk Town Court found the second applicant guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. On 15 July 2004 the Kasli Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region relieved him from further serving his sentence. The first applicant requested the local administration to authorise the second applicant's entry to and residence in Ozersk. On an unspecified date the Ozersk Town Administration (Администрация Озерского городского округа, the "Town Administration") and the Chelyabinsk Regional Division of the Federal Security Service (Управление федеральной службы безопасности по Челябинской области, the "Regional Security Service") dismissed the request referring to the second applicant's conviction. The second applicant challenged the refusal in court. On 21 June 2005 the Ozersk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region granted the second applicant's claim. According to the court's findings, the dismissal of the application for entry permit did not have a basis in law. The Town Court ordered (1) the Town Administration to issue the second applicant with an entry and residence permit and (2) the Regional Security Service to approve it. The parties did not appeal against the judgment of 21 June 2005 and it came into force. It appears that the judgment has not been enforced to date. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 June 2005. The applicants allege a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The second applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he cannot use his real property in Ozersk. The second applicant alleges a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. Without invoking any Convention provision, the second applicant complains that he cannot obtain medical insurance, employment or social benefits. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Was Article 6 S: 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? 2. If Article 6 S: 1 of the Convention was applicable to the said proceedings, is the non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 June 2005 compatible with the second applicant's rights under Article 6 S: 1 of the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III)? 3. Has there been a restriction on the second applicant's freedom to choose his residence, guaranteed by Article 2 S: 1 of Protocol No. 4?
Поделиться в социальных сетях: