Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.12.2009 "Дело "Сергей Смирнов (Sergey Smirnov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Sergey Smirnov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic}, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 14085/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Sergey Yuryevich Smirnov ("the applicant"), on 26 February 2003.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr D. Gorelishvili, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant complained of a violation of his right of access to a court.
4. By a decision of 6 July 2006 the Court declared the application partly admissible.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. He has no fixed place of residence or residence registration.

A. Proceedings against a hire agency

6. On 24 May 2002 the applicant asked to hire cutlery and a folding bed from the "Morion" hire agency. Having studied his passport, the manager replied that the company could not hire out anything to him because he had no residence registration <*>.
--------------------------------
<*> In Russia a stamp indicating a person's residence registration is placed in his or her passport.

7. On 12 August 2002 the applicant lodged a civil action against the "Morion" company, alleging unlawful denial of services. The statement of claim indicated that the applicant had no fixed place of residence and provided an address in Moscow for correspondence.
8. On 9 October 2002 the Khoroshevskiy District Court stayed the applicant's claim because his place of residence had not been specified. He was invited to specify it by 11 November 2002, failing which his action would be declared inadmissible.
9. The applicant appealed against the decision of 9 October 2002, alleging an unlawful restriction on his right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 46 of the Russian Constitution on account of his inability to show that he had permanent residence at a specific place.
10. On 20 December 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision.

B. Proceedings against a telecommunications provider

11. On 5 April 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to subscribe to the services of the MTS telecommunications company. He was refused because he had no residence registration.
12. On 22 August 2003 he sued the MTS company and the cell phone vendor for subscription to a contract and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He indicated the city of Moscow as his place of residence and provided a poste restante address for correspondence.
13. On 8 September 2002 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow stayed the applicant's claim due to his omission to indicate his address. He was instructed to rectify the omission within ten days, failing which his claim would be declared inadmissible.
14. The applicant received a copy of the decision by mail at the address indicated in his statement of claim.
15. The applicant app

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 ... 9 10