Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.02.2009 «Дело Нолан (Nolan) и K. против России» [англ.]

d been left behind in Russia without either of his parents. The applicant also requested assistance to be reunited with his son.

2. Attempted return to Russia on a new visa

29. On 4 July 2002 the applicant received a new invitation issued through the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 5 July 2002 he applied for a visa to enter Russia at the Russian consulate in Tallinn and on the same day he was issued a multiple-entry visa valid until 3 July 2003.
30. On 7 July 2002, while he was crossing the border from Finland to Russia, Russian border guards at passport control twice stamped the applicant's visa "annulled" and denied him entry into Russia. No explanation was given. The consulate in Tallinn referred him to the Ministry's office in Moscow.
31. On 12 April 2003 the applicant was reunited with his son whom his nanny, a Ukrainian national, had brought to Ukraine.

D. Proceedings concerning the applicant's complaints

32. Many of the applicant's complaints sent on 26 June 2002 did not receive a response. Of those that did, none addressed the substance of his complaints. Responses from the Moscow Border Control of the Federal Border Service of 9 July and 22 August 2002 indicated that he had been denied entry into Russia on the basis of section 27 § 1 of the Entry Procedure Act, in implementation of an order given by another (unnamed) State body. The military prosecutor's office responded that the applicant "had not been placed in administrative detention and therefore no detention record had been drawn up".
33. On 8 August 2002 the applicant, through his legal representative in Moscow, challenged the decision refusing his return to Russia before the Khimki Town Court of the Moscow Region. He filed the challenge on behalf of himself and his son K., listing the Moscow Border Control as defendant.
34. On 29 August 2002, at the directions hearing, the defendants disclosed that they had acted on the orders of the Federal Security Service (FSB). The court joined the FSB as a co-defendant.
35. On 5 September 2002 the defendant requested that jurisdiction be transferred to the Moscow Regional Court because matters involving State secrets could only be examined by regional courts. The court granted their request in an interim decision.
36. On 25 March 2003, after repeated adjournments, the hearing was held in camera before the Moscow Regional Court. The applicant and K. were represented by counsel and an officer of the Unification Church in Russia, both of whom were required to give an undertaking not to disclose the contents of the proceedings.
37. The Moscow Regional Court dismissed the complaint. On the issue of whether the applicant had posed a threat to national security, the judgment stated as following:
"The representative of the first deputy head of the Department for the Protection of the Constitutional Order and the Fight against Terrorism, of the Russian FSB Directorate... did not accept the appellants' claims, and presented a written defence to the complaint... In support of his position the representative pointed out that his client had approved the report to deny US citizen Patrick Francis Nolan entry into the Russian Federation, which was prepared by the Stavropol Regional Branch of the Federal Security Service on the basis of materials obtained as a result of operational and search measures. In the opinion of Russian FSB experts participating in the preparation of the report, the [applicant's] activities in our country are of a destructive nature and pose a threat to the security of the Russian Federation. The representative... emphasised that the threat to State security is created by the activities, not the religious beliefs of [the applicant]."
38. Nowhere else in the nine-page text of the judgment did the Regio



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 23 24 25

	Поделиться:	Tweet