A resident of Barnaul complained to the Constitutional Court due to the refusal to issue a passport
An extraordinary complaint has been filed with the Constitutional Court: a native of the USSR who has left for Germany as a child, asks him to consider him a citizen of the Russian Federation. The Russian consulate in Germany without problems issued him a passport of the Russian Federation, and in 2018 he also received an internal passport. But the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Supreme Court indicate the absence of archival records of entry into citizenship. The lawyers interviewed “Kommersant” find the applicant’s position partially justified.
“Kommersant” got acquainted with a complaint filed in the Constitutional Court by a resident of Barnaul Alexander Karpunin. He was born in 1975 in Novosibirsk, and in 1991 he left with his parents to Germany, where he registered at the consulate of Hamburg as a citizen of the USSR. In 2005 and 2012, he received a passport of the Russian Federation in Germany. The internal Russian passport was issued to Mr. Karpunin in 2018 in Novosibirsk. He lived “to two countries” without problems, the complaint says, but in 2021 in Barnaul he went to change his passport in connection with the 45th anniversary. Then, the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Altai Territory considered that Alexander Karpunin is not a citizen of the Russian Federation. The applicant turned to the Central District Court of Barnaul, who in 2022 recognized the conclusion of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, obliging to give the man documents. In March 2023, this position was confirmed by the Altai Regional Court.
“The court decision has entered into legal force,” the complaint was approved, but they did not make a passport to the applicant. In August 2023, the eighth cassation court after a series of inspections of the Ministry of Internal Affairs abolished the decision of lower instances, finding out that Mr. Karpunin did not apply to the Russian authorities with a statement on the acquisition of citizenship, and although the issuance of passports took place, there were no legal grounds for it. In December 2023, this position was supported by the Supreme Court.
In the complaint in the Constitutional Court, Alexander Karpunin says that his rights are grossly violated, since his “sustainable legal communication” with Russia is evidenced by the land plot purchased and issued in Barnaul (in 2010) and the apartment (in 2019).
The applicant quotes the decision of the first instance that the authorities for 15 years “repeatedly” confirmed his citizenship, issuing documents. Mr. Karpunin reports that in the Barnaul apartment he was registered and lived from the moment of purchase, and his return to Germany, where his father lives, “is impossible due to circumstances and beliefs”: in this case, he explains, he will have to pay taxes that “will be expended for the acquisition of weapons” for Ukraine. Mr. Karpunin informed the KS that he has German citizenship; The possibility of withdrawal from it is not mentioned in the complaint.
Alexander Karpunin asks the KS to recognize as unconstitutional Part 2 of Art. 64 and part 1 of Art. 328 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAS) of the Russian Federation (they say about the impossibility of challenging the circumstances of civil cases when entering into force of court decisions on them and that cassation can only be reviewed in case of a significant violation of procedural law). The applicant also asks him to give him a Russian passport.
The senior lawyer of the law firm, Just Alexei Emelianenko, believes that the applicant « exercised the rights of a citizen of the country for 45 years. »
“The courts probably proceeded from the formal approach about the absence of documents on the adoption of citizenship,” says Alina Laktionova, the head of the practice of private clients of the Law Firm, “but the applicant appeals to the actual circumstances – long -term residence in Russia, the availability of real estate, and repeatedly obtaining passports. These are important arguments that the courts did not fully take into account. An erroneous issuance of a passport does not deprive the citizen of rights. ” She considers the appeal to the COP logical against the background of the exhaustion of the possibilities of proceedings in other instances. Mr. Emelianenko believes that, taking into account the plot of the case and, according to the Law “On Citizenship of the Russian Federation”, Alexander Karpunin is a Russian citizen, since he was born in the USSR in the family of a citizen of the USSR, was registered with the embassy in Germany and repeatedly received Russian passports. The refusal to change the applicant’s documents is based only on the results of the audit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which the lawyer considers a formal and insufficient basis: “This can be explained by many factors, for example, the loss of an application for entry into citizenship or its critical damage.” “At least, accepting the real estate tax paid by the applicant, the state additionally confirmed its citizenship,” adds Alexei Emelianenko.
The requirements of Alexander Karpunin to be recognized as unconstitutional Part 2 of Art. 64 and part 1 of Art. 328 CAS of the Russian Federation Alina Laktionova finds not quite justified: “The applicant’s problem is not normal in the law, but in how it was applied by the courts.” Alexei Emelianenko also seem to be « not quite accurate way of protecting violated rights. » The expert believes that the applicant should ask the KS to recognize the unconstitutional Part 1 of Art. 4 of the Law “On Citizenship of the Russian Federation”: “It does not disclose what exactly can be confirmed by a sustainable legal connection with the state.”
