5HSRUWRQ5XVVLD unless they expressed their wish to the contrary before 6 February 1993. The basis for establishing whether a person was permanently resident within Russia was the internal residence registration (propiska) in his or her USSR passport. Article 18(g) of the citizenship law provided for a simplified procedure (“by way of registration”) for obtaining Russian citizenship for citizens of the former USSR who arrived in Russia after 6 February 1992 and expressed their wish to become Russian citizens before 31 December 2000. In the context of the Russian Citizenship Law 1991/1992 the soviet propiska system (akin to today’s residence registration system36) became the reason for several legal disputes in Russia, especially in cases of stateless persons (citizens of the former USSR). In the case of Larisa Tatishvili v. Russia37 the Russian authorities’ arbitrarily refused to certify her residence at a chosen address. The applicant to the European Court of Human Rights, Larisa Artemovna Tatishvili, was born in 1939 in Georgia. She continued to hold citizenship of the former USSR until 31 December 2000 when she became a stateless person. At the time of the application to Strasbourg she lived in Moscow. The domestic authorities’ refusal was motivated by the fact that the applicant had failed to prove her Russian citizenship or confirm her intention to obtain it. The Russian Government denied that there had been any interference with the applicant’s right to liberty of movement because her presence in the Russian Federation had not been lawful. The Russian authorities claimed that the applicant, who had arrived from Georgia, had failed to take any steps to determine her citizenship and to make her residence in Russia lawful, such as confirming her Georgian citizenship or applying for Russian citizenship. They stated that the applicant’s situation had been governed by the 1981 USSR Law on the legal status of foreign citizens in the USSR and by the 1991 Rules on the stay of foreign citizens in the USSR. Pursuant to articles 5 and 32 of the 1981 USSR law, the applicant, as a stateless person, should have obtained a residence permit from the Ministry of the Interior. The Russian Government concurrently claimed that, after entry visas had been introduced for Georgian citizens from 5 December 2000, the applicant could only have been lawfully resident in Russia on 25 December 2000 if she had crossed the border with a valid Russian visa in her national passport. Larisa Artemovna Tatishvili criticised the Government’s arguments as mutually exclusive and inconsistent. She continued to hold citizenship of the former USSR and had never acquired Georgian citizenship. Consequently, she had not been required to obtain an entry visa as a Georgian citizen. In any event, she had not crossed the Russian border in 2000 or later. As to the Government’s reliance on the 1981 USSR Law and the 1991 Rules, article 1 of that Law stated that it did not apply to USSR citizens, which the applicant had remained, and it had therefore not applied to her. In fact, until a new Russian Law on the legal status of foreign citizens was adopted on 25 June 2002, Russia had no legislation imposing an obligation on citizens of the former USSR to obtain residence permits as a condition of their lawful residence in Russia. Thus, she had been lawfully present in the Russian Federation. Finally, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) and a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 15 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage (as compensation for an administrative fine she had to pay), EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. As the case of Tatishvili v. Russia illustrates, not being formally registered in Russia prevents any resident (either citizen or stateless person) from exercising fundamental social rights, 36 Karpukhin D.V. Registration on the place of residence in the Russian Federation in the case law of the ECHR. Zhylishnoe pravo. 2011. !6. P.69-90 [K&+(8E1" S.H. ?#%1./+&D12 () =#./8 ,1/#$6./*& * ?)..1@.;)@ T#-#+&D11 * &;/&E L*+)(#@.;)%) .8-& () (+&*&= <#$)*#;& // U1$1C")# (+&*). 2011. N 6. A. 69-90]. 37 Tatishvili v. Russia, 22 February 2007 (no. 1509/02). 56&$6(8'2&,7&5‹$XWKRU