EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

The judgment became final on the same day. One of the applicants complained that the national authorities had withdrawn his passport pending the trial. As a consequence, from 6 January 1994 onwards, he had been unable to leave the country. In his view, the total travel ban lasting over a decade constituted a disproportionate measure in breach of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

Questions: 1. Is the application admissible? If not, on which grounds? 2. Which provision(s) of the Convention, except for Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, could be complained of? 3. Was there an “interference” with the right? 4. If yes, was the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? 5. What would be your legal advice to the applicant? Aliens Mr V.D., the first applicant, was born in X. In 1951 he moved to Y. together with his parents. In 1970 he married Ms N.D., the second applicant, who had been born in Y. in 1949. Both applicants are of Z. origin. The applicants have three children who all live in Y. Their daughter J. (born in 1971) is a stateless person. She has a permanent residence permit in Y. The applicants’ first son S. (born in 1975) is a Z. national. He too holds a permanent residence permit. The applicants’ second son V. (born in 1983) is a Z. national and he holds a temporary residence permit in Y. for five years (until 11 July 2006). At the time the application was lodged with the Court, he was living together with the applicants. The first applicant’s mother who had had a permanent residence permit to live in Y. died on 4 December 2004. His father (born in 1923), a Z. national, resides in Y. on the basis of a permanent residence permit. The second applicant’s mother and the applicants’ grandchildren are also living in Y. From 1969 to 1995 the first applicant served in the Z. armed forces. On 26 July 1994 Y. and Z. concluded a treaty on the withdrawal of Z. troops fromY. territory. In 1995 until his assignment to reserve on 12 April 1995 (see below) the first applicant served as a senior midshipman in the P. military unit. His duties included the dismantling of a nuclear reactor in P. On 10 April 1995 the commander of the P. military unit issued a decree by which the first applicant was assigned to the reserve as of 12 April 1995. He was discharged from the P. military unit and sent to the F. military unit in S., in the state of Z. According to the decree, it was decided to allocate financial means to the applicants and their two sons for their travel to S. As the applicants did not have housing in Z., the first applicant applied for a flat in Z. within the framework of an aid programme provided by the A. On 10 April 1995 he signed a written commitment in this connection. The form of the commitment was in language of Z. In the form, signed by the first applicant, it was stated that he wished to take part in the programme for providing housing for officers of the Z. armed forces. It was further stated that if he received housing in the context of the programme, he and his family would vacate the dwelling that was at their disposal in the country of Y. and that in the future he would be able to visit the country

102

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION