The Judgement of the St. Petersburg City Court, issued on December 8, 2014
The judgement of the St. Petersburg City Court on the complaint of the Department of the Federal Migration Service in St. Petersburg and Leningrad region (hereinafter the DFMS) for upholding the judgement of the Nevsky District Court of St.Petersburg.
The judgement of the Nevsky District Court of St. Petersburg satisfied M.'s complaint on denial of the DFMS to permit M. a temporary residence on the territory of the Russian Federation because of her being HIV-positive.
The DFMS had sent a complaint to the St. Petersburg City Court about deeming illegal the judgement of the Nevsky court on upholding the decision of the DFMS on refusing a permit for a temporary residence in the territory of the Russian Federation to M., a citizen of Ukraine because of her HIV-positive status.
In its complaint, the DFMS has requested to upheld the decision of the court of the first instance as illegal and unwarranted.
The St. Petersburg City Court recognized the true findings of the Court of first instance concerning the circumstances of the case, and also noted that according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, foreign citizens and stateless persons in the Russian Federation have the same rights and bear the same obligations as citizens of the Russian Federation, except for the cases stipulated by the Federal law or by an international treaty. In particular, such rights include the right to freedom of movement and free choice of place of residence.
The Court also pointed out that in a situation of a conflict between equally protected and constitutionally significant values the law enforcement agencies and the courts in deciding whether to grant a temporary residence in the territory of the Russian Federation to a person with a disease caused by the human immunodeficiency virus shall have to take into account the factual circumstances of the particular case on the basis of humanitarian considerations.
The Court concluded that under the circumstances of the case, the refusal to permit a temporary residence in the territory of the Russian Federation was a significant interference into a personal and family life of the applicant and her family members, as it would require the need for her to leave the territory of the Russian Federation at the time of the expiration of the visa obtained. For re-entry a short term visa registration would be required, whereupon the applicant would need to leave again, which would cause a significant impact on the living conditions of her infant son and would violate M.'s right to participate in the upbringing of her child.
The Court found that due to the family circumstances the rejection to permit M. a temporary residence would be an unwarranted interference in family life, m., contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Court concluded that the reasoning of the appeal essentially came down to the disagreement of the interested person, who was seeking annulment of the Court decision, and so the appeal did not contain legally significant facts, and therefore found them untenable.
The Judicial Board found no reason to annul the judgement of The Nevsky district court of St. Petersburg, issued on September 15, 2014, and left it in power, the complaint of the DFMS was denied.
The text of the judgement in Russian (see the link)
Робин С. Шарма