TATISHVILI v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 3 the matter should be examined not as a challenge to the State official's refusal to grant registration, but rather as a civil action for determination of the applicant's right to move into the flat. 15. Secondly, the court held that the applicant had failed to prove her Russian citizenship or to confirm her intention of obtaining it and pointed out that “a treaty” between Russia and Georgia provided for visa-based exchanges. 16. The judgment concluded as follows: “Given that the applicant had failed to produce information confirming her right to move into the flat in question, information on [her] citizenship and the lawfulness of [her] entry into the Russian Federation, the court accordingly dismissed her claim.” 17. On 5 March 2001 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow confirmed certain amendments to the hearing record, as submitted by the applicant's representative. In particular, the record was to reflect the applicant's statements about the non-applicability of municipal-tenancy provisions to her situation since the flat had been in private ownership, and about the flat-owner's consent to her residence. 18. On 19 March 2001 the applicant's representative filed a statement of appeal. He submitted, in particular, that the District Court had incorrectly referred to the applicant's Georgian citizenship and to a visa requirement for her entry into the Russian Federation, given that the applicant had never held Georgian citizenship and that, in any event, the residence regulations applied uniformly to all persons lawfully residing within the Russian Federation, irrespective of their citizenship. He indicated that the District Court had failed to advance any justification for the restriction on the applicant's right to choose her residence. He also contended that the District Court's reliance on tenancy provisions had been invalid because the flatowner had had clear title to the flat and there could be no dispute as to the applicant's right to move in, since she had had the flat-owner's explicit consent. 19. On 2 August 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. It reiterated the District Court's findings that the applicant's claim had to be dismissed because she had failed to prove her Russian citizenship or an intention to obtain it and because she had failed to provide any documents confirming her right to move into the flat in question. The City Court did not address the arguments advanced by the applicant's representative in the grounds of appeal.