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

of Y. and surrounded countries only as a foreigner on general basis. Furthermore, it was stated that the applicant had no housing in Z., that he had not paid anyone for the right to take part in the programme and that he was aware that the housing in the context of the programme would be provided free of charge. It was confirmed that the dwelling he possessed in the country of Y. had not been privatised or sold and that he had not received any payment for it. On 20 April 1995 the first applicant submitted an application for taking part in the programme. In the application form, signed by the first applicant, it was stated that if he were to receive a dwelling in the context of the aid programme, he, together with his family, would vacate the dwelling that was at his family’s disposal in the country of Y. and not seek to stay in the country of Y as permanent residents. It further stated that in the future he would be able to visit the country of Y and surrounded countries only as a foreigner. It was stated that he and his family did not possess a dwelling in the country of Y and surrounded countries and that they would not seek to privatise or sell the dwelling at their disposal and that they had not received and would not receive any payment for vacating their current dwelling. It was also stated that he confirmed that at the moment of signing the application he did not have housing in Z. and that he had not paid anyone for the right to take part in the programme. It was stated that he was aware that if all the preconditions for taking part in the programme were fulfilled and he were to comply with all the conditions and requirements of the programme, he would receive money for buying a dwelling. Finally, it was stated that he was also aware that the participation in the programme was voluntary and that if it were to prove unsuccessful, his place in a municipal waiting list of applicants for dwelling would be retained. On 21 April 1995 the first applicant concluded an agreement in S. with the company SSS to the effect that he would pay an equivalent of 1,000 euros and receive an apartment at P. Street 120-349 in S. The agreement was to become valid if the first applicant were to get money in the context of the programme for granting military reserve officers certificates for obtaining housing. On 4 July 1995 the applicants submitted an application for a residence permit in Estonia. On 31 August 1995 the mayor of Smolensk allocated apartment no. 337 at 120 Popov Street to the first applicant and ordered that he be registered as its owner. On 18 December 1995, the first applicant was entered in the list of staff of the military unit in Smolensk. On 11 July 1996 the applicants were granted temporary residence permits in Y. for five years. As from 1997 the first applicant was working as a guard in Y. The second applicant was working as a housemaid, also in that country, as from 1999. In 1999 the Foreigners’ Act was amended so as to exclude the possibility of issuing or extending residence permits to persons who had committed themselves to leaving Y. or who had received an accommodation abroad within the framework of an international aid programme. On 28 November 2000 the second applicant privatised (purchased on favourable conditions from the municipality) an apartment no. 56 at 1M. Street in P. On 13 February 2001 the second applicant, acting as her son S. proxy, privatised an apartment no. 10 at 1 K. Street in P. On 30 April 2001 the applicants applied for extensions of their residence permits. On 2 November 2001 the Minister of the Interior issued orders by which the applicants were refused extensions. The refusal was based on two grounds. Firstly, the first applicant had served as a professional member of the armed forces of a foreign country and had retired. This ground applied also to the second applicant as a family member of the first applicant. Secondly, the applicants had committed themselves to leaving Y. and had received accommodation abroad within the framework of an international aid programme. The applicants submitted a complaint to the T. Administrative Court. They contested the retroactive application of the provisions of the Foreigners’ Act so as to refuse extensions of residence permits of persons who had committed themselves to leaving Y. and who had received an accommodation abroad within the framework of an international aid programme. The Foreigners’ Act did not contain the disputed provisions at the time when the applicants

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

103