FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33405/10
Dmitriy Vladimirovich KOSTROMITIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 October 2014 as a Chamber composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Prebensen, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2010,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the submissions by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Vladimirovich Kostromitin, is a national of Uzbekistan, who was born in 1974 and lives in the Penza Region.
2. The Russian Government were represented before the Court by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. In 2002, the applicant moved to the Penza Region from Tashkent, together with his mother and grandmother. In 2003 they bought a house in the town of Shnayevo.
4. In 2009, the applicant applied to the Federal Migration Service of the Primorskiy Region for a residence permit. By letter of 10 August 2009, he was informed that his application was rejected by reference to section 7 § 1 (13) of the Foreign Nationals Act, which restricted the issue of residence permits to foreign nationals who could not show their HIV‑negative status.
5. On 16 October 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza rejected the applicant’s challenge to the Migration Service’s refusal, referring to the same legal provision and finding no exceptional circumstances in the applicant’s case. On 15 December 2009 the Penza Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
6. In December 2012, the applicant asked the District Court to re-open the proceedings on account of a new fact which the Court’s judgment in Kiyutin v. Russia (no. 2700/10, ECHR 2011) was considered to be. On 18 January 2013 the District Court acceded to his request.
7. By judgment of 6 February 2013, the District Court granted the applicant’s claim against the Federal Migration Service and held that it should issue the applicant with a residence permit. The District Court referred to the case-law of the Court and of the Russian Constitutional Court and noted that his close relatives are Russian nationals living in the Penza Region.
8. On 16 April 2013 the Penza Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. On 8 July 2013 the Migration Service issued a residence permit to the applicant valid for three years.
COMPLAINT
9. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that he had been a victim of discrimination on account of his health status in the determination of his application for a residence permit.
THE LAW
10. By letter of 5 May 2014, the applicant informed the Court that he had obtained a residence permit and that he wished to withdraw his application.
11. Article 37 of the Convention provides as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.
2. The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.”
12. The Court notes the applicant’s stated intention not to pursue his application. It also notes that the domestic decisions which the applicant complained of have been quashed and that a new decision has been adopted in compliance with the Court’s case-law.
13. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren PrebensenKhanlar Hajiyev
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy