Communicated on 15 October 2020
Published on 2 November 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 34205/19
Anastasiya Valeryevna YASHINA
against Russia
lodged on 17 June 2019
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Anastasiya Valeryevna Yashina, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Norilsk. She is represented before the Court by Mr N. Zboroshenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.The judgment debt and enforcement proceedings
On 24 March 2014 the justice of the peace of the 168th court circuit of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg awarded 39,848 Russian roubles to a limited liability company, to be paid by the applicant.
On 7 December 2015 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) issued a writ of execution.
On 25 February 2016 a bailiff with the bailiffs’ service of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg (“the bailiff”) initiated enforcement proceedings.
On 14 November 2016 the bailiff ordered to recover the debt from the applicant’s bank account.
On 12 July 2017 the bailiff attached the applicant’s flat.
On 19 January 2018 the bailiff issued a ruling restricting the applicant’s right to leave the country for a period of six months on the grounds that the applicant had not paid the judgment debt within the prescribed time-limits.
The applicant alleged that the bailiff had not notified her of the rulings of 25 February 2016 and 19 January 2018.
On 5 February 2018 the applicant, who was allegedly not aware of the enforcement proceedings and travel restrictions imposed on her on 19 January 2018, decided to travel abroad, but was stopped by border guards as she was attempting to board a plane.
On 6 February 2018 the bailiff lifted the travel restrictions on the grounds that the applicant had fully paid the judgment debt. On the same date the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings.Proceedings to challenge the bailiff’s ruling of 19 January 2018
On 14 February 2018 the applicant challenged in court the bailiff’s ruling of 19 January 2018 imposing a travel ban. She submitted that she had not been notified of the enforcement proceedings and, therefore, the bailiff had no right to impose travel restrictions on her. In any event, the bailiff’s ruling imposing travel restrictions was arbitrary and disproportionate. In addition, she was not notified of that ruling.
On 14 May 2018 the District Court granted the applicant’s complaint.
On 16 October 2018 the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) quashed that judgment and dismissed the applicant’s complaint finding that the bailiff had duly notified the applicant of the enforcement proceedings and the travel restrictions had been lawful.
On 27 February 2019 a judge of the City Court refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the cassation court.
On 31 May 2019 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that the ban imposed on her leaving the territory of Russia was unlawful and disproportionate.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was any restriction placed on the applicant’s freedom to leave Russia, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?
2. If so, was that restriction in accordance with law, did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in the third paragraph of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and was it necessary in a democratic society for the achievement of such an aim (see Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, §§ 42‑57, 26 November 2009; Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, §§ 64‑102, 11 July 2013; and Battista v. Italy, no. 43978/09, §§ 35-49, ECHR 2014)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy