5HSRUWRQ5XVVLD X. was HIV-positive and lived in Russia with his Russian wife and daughter (both of whom were Russian citizens). The applicant complained that Russian legislative provisions (the HIV Prevention Federal Law and the Federal Law about Foreign Citizens) violated his right to respect for his family life and his right to medical assistance and were also discriminatory. On 12 May 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint.76 The Court decided that the contested legislative provisions were fully compatible with the Constitution. They ruled that the existing restrictions on temporary residence of HIV-infected foreign nationals had been imposed for the protection of constitutional values, in particular for the protection of public health. On 10 March 2011, another case regarding discrimination against HIV-positive foreign people in Russia was brought to the European Court in Strasbourg - KIYUTIN v. Russia.77 This case was brought by a citizen of Uzbekistan, Mr. Viktor Viktorovich Kiyutin, who claimed to be a victim of discrimination based of his health status by consideration of his application for a permanent residence permit in Russia. Kiyutin was born in the Uzbek SSR of the Soviet Union in 1971 and acquired Uzbek citizenship upon the collapse of the USSR. On 18 July 2003 the applicant married a Russian citizen and they had a daughter in January 2004. In August 2003 Kiyutin applied for a permanent residence permit. He was required to undergo a medical examination during which he tested positive for HIV. Based on this fact, all his following applications for a residence permit were consequently refused by the Russian authorities. Based on the examination of all circumstances of this case, the European court of Human Rights ruled that most immigration policies demonstrated that most countries in the world shared the understanding that HIV-related travel restrictions were not an efficient method of protecting public health. This was implicitly proven by the fact that a majority of states did not apply any restrictions and that a number of countries had recently abolished such restrictions and recognised that HIV did not pose a threat to public health. The European Court found that as the spouse of a Russian citizen and father of a Russian child, the applicant was eligible to apply for a residence permit by virtue of his family ties in Russia. Furthermore, the ECHR also stated that Russia does not apply HIV-related travel restrictions to tourists or short-term visitors. The European Court noted that Russian legislation does not impose HIV tests on Russian citizens leaving and returning to the country. This Court’s statements are of a great importance in the context of applicable naturalisation procedure in Russia. The Court held that Mr. Kiyutin had been a victim of discrimination on account of his health status, in violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 8. Under Article 41, the Court held that Russia was to pay the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR 350 for costs and expenses. The case of Kiyutin is an important signal to the Russian authorities that they should improve the relevant legislative provisions in the area of Russian citizenship law. The case of Kiyutin is clear evidence that the naturalisation procedure should remain available also for HIVpeople, because in most cases these are former citizens of the USSR (i.e. compatriots) or those who have established family ties with Russian citizens. Therefore, the Russian state cannot ignore their 76 Decision of the Constitutional Court of the RF from 12 May 2006 of N 155-O regarding the complaint of the citizen of Ukraine X. regarding violation of his constitutional rights by article 11 (2) of the Federal Law ‘About the prevention of distribution in the Russian Federation of the disease caused by a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-infection)’, by article 7 (13) and article 9 (13) of the Federal Law ‘About the legal status of foreign citizens in the Russian Federation’ [B(+#-#$#"1# KA ?T )/ 12 =&2 2006 %. N 155-B () ,&$):# %+&,-&"1"& Z;+&1"' Y. "& "&+8>#"1# #%) ;)"./1/8D1)""'E (+&* (8";/)= 2 ./&/61 11 TG ‘B (+#-8(+#,-#"11 +&.(+)./+&"#"12 * ?T 9&:)$#*&"12, *'9'*&#=)%) *1+8.)= 1==8")-#41D1/& <#$)*#;& (HJ\-1"4#;D11)’, (8";/)= 13 ./&/61 7 1 (8";/)= 13 ./&/61 9 TG ‘B (+&*)*)= ()$),#"11 1")./+&""'E %+&,-&" * ?T’]. The Russian text of the Decision is available on the website of the Russian Constitutional Court: www.ksrf.ru 77 KIYUTIN v. Russia from 10 March 2011 (Application no.2700/10). 56&$6(8'2&,7&5‹$XWKRU