Communicated on 12 May 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 7549/09
Lyubov Trofimovna ALPEYEVA
against Russia
lodged on 30 December 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Lyubov Trofimovna Alpeyeva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Volzhskiy, the Volgograd Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Seizure of the Russian passport
The applicant, a Soviet national at the relevant time, lived in Kyrgyzstan.
In 1994 she applied for Russian citizenship to the Russian Embassy in Bishkek.
In March 2004 she was granted Russian citizenship and the Russian Embassy in Bishkek put a stamp in her Soviet passport to this effect.
Thereafter the applicant moved to Russia.
On 14 July 2001 she obtained a new Russian internal passport.
In 2006 she applied to the Federal Migration Service (FMS) for “international” passport required for foreign travel.
On 11 April 2006 an official of the FMS seized her Russian passport which was later destroyed. The FMS referred to a report of 26 January 2006 on a check conducted by the agencies of the interior, according to which the applicant had never properly acquired Russian citizenship and therefore had no right to be in possession of a Russian passport. The report stated, in particular, that whereas the applicant had been issued with a Russian passport on 14 July 2001, she was not registered in the database of the ministry of Foreign Affairs as a person who had acquired Russian citizenship. Furthermore, according to the letter of 18 October 2015 from the Russian Embassy in Kyrgyzstan, it had no records on her obtaining Russian citizenship either.
2. Complaints to the prosecuting authorities
The applicant complained to the prosecuting authorities.
On 15 June 2006 the Volzhskiy prosecutor’s office rejected the complaint.
In the response of 27 October 2006 the Volgograd Region prosecutor’s office stated that the FMS was not competent to seize passports, which was in sole competence of the agencies of the interior; that the applicant’s passport had been seized in breach of the law; and that the prosecutor’s office recommended the FMS to rectify the situation.
3. Court proceedings
The applicant appealed against the findings of the report of 26 January 2006 to a court.
On 28 May 2007 the Volzhskiy Town Court found for the applicant and held that the check had been unlawful.
The decision was subsequently quashed under supervisory review and the case remitted for a fresh examination.
On 28 February 2008 the Volzhskiy Town Court again held that the check had been unlawful.
However, the FMS did not set aside the decision to seize the applicant’s passport, and a new passport was not issued to her either.
The applicant again instituted court proceedings, this time to find the seizure of her passport unlawful.
On 4 April 2008 the Volzhskiy Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It accepted the FMS’ arguments that the applicant had never acquired Russian citizenship, although it also found that the FMS officials’ actions of 11 April 2006 had been procedurally incorrect as the FMS did not have competence to seize passports.
On 3 July 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal.
The applicant’s request for supervisory review was dismissed on 30 January 2009.
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 applicant complains about the seizure of her passport and de facto revocation of her Russian citizenship. She contends that without her passport she cannot exercise her fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of movement, as she is even unable to buy train tickets. Furthermore, without an identity document she cannot either find an employment or receive pension and social benefits.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her 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?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy