Communicated on 12 May 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 44202/14
Irina Nikolayevna STARETSKAYA
against Russia
lodged on 5 September 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Irina Nikolayevna Staretskaya, is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in the village of Sergiyevskaya, the Krasnodar Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was born in Kutaisi, at the time the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia.
On 20 November 1992 the applicant moved to Russia with her parents. She had a Soviet passport.
In October 1993 she lost her passport and applied for a new one.
On 28 November 1993 the applicant was issued with a new internal passport which stated that the passport holder was a Russian citizen by virtue of section 13 § 1 of the 1991 Russian Citizenship Act.
On 19 November 2002 the applicant was issued with a new Russian passport.
In 2012 she applied to the local branch of the Federal Migration Service (FMS) where she was informed that her passport was wanted as erroneously issued.
In 2013 the FMS suggested that the applicant apply for the residence permit and then for Russian citizenship.
The applicant contested the decision to invalidate her passport before a court.
On 17 October 2013 the Korenovskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region dismissed her claim. The court upheld the findings of the Tuapse FMS report received in February 2010. According to the report, since birth until November 1992 the applicant lived in Georgia. She neither lived in Russia on 6 February 1992, the date of entry into force of the 1991 Russian Citizenship Act, nor applied for Russian citizenship in accordance with the established procedure. Therefore, in 2002 her Russian passport was issued in breach of the applicable rules, and the applicant was not a Russian citizen.
The applicant appealed.
On 16 January 2014 the Krasnodar Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
On 26 May 2014 the same court refused the applicant’s cassation appeal.
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 argues that without her passport she cannot exercise her fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of movement.
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