ECHR ruling of March 27, 2018 in the case of Berkovich and Others (Berkovich and Others) v. the Russian Federation (application No. 5871/07 and others).
In 2007, complainants were assisted in preparing applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
The case has successfully examined the complaints of the applicants that they have been banned from traveling abroad for several years due to the absolute restriction of the right to leave the territory of the Russian Federation as persons having access to state secrets. The case has violated the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants were banned from traveling abroad for several years due to the absolute restriction of the right to leave the territory of the Russian Federation to persons having access to "state secrets".
QUESTIONS OF RIGHT
Regarding compliance with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. The European Court has previously established that the protested prohibition is not sufficiently substantiated, given that the confidential information held by the applicants could have been transferred to third parties in various ways that did not require the applicants to travel abroad or even direct physical contact with third parties (see European Court ruling in the case of Bartik v. Russia (Bartik v. Russia) of December 21, 2006, applications No. 55565/00 and 55565/00, and the Soltysyak v. Russia case by the European Court of Justice in the case of Soltysyak v. RussiaFebruary 10, 2011, applications N 4663/05 and 4663/05).
The case has violated the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (adopted unanimously).
Regarding compliance with the requirements of Article 46 of the Convention. As of the date of this Resolution, the relevant provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation were not amended or repealed.
The lengthy non-fulfillment by the authorities of the Russian Federation of their obligation to accede to the Convention and the obligation to execute two judgments of the European Court disagreed with the duties provided for in Article 46 of the Convention. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was to consider the question of what the authorities of the Russian Federation should have done to fulfill their duty in the framework of measures of both a general and individual nature.
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded each of the applicants from 3,500 to 5,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the claim for pecuniary damage was rejected.