" ( 2 4 )"

( )




   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   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'

   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 (
       ,  the  "Town  Administration")  and  the
   Chelyabinsk   Regional   Division  of  the  Federal  Security  Service
   (         ,
   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.


   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?


, , :







(? ? ? OpenID?)

e-mail ( , - ):


( -):




15.05.2015. "" .