CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s94AD5A1 { width:202.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 1098/14 Mokhammad Daud NASYERI and Marina Yevgenyevna NASYERI against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 December 2013, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE   The applicants, Mr Mokhammad Daud Nasyeri and Ms Marina Yevgenyevna Nasyeri, are Afghan and Russian nationals, who were born in   1974 and 1977 respectively and live in St Petersburg. They were represented before the Court by Ms O. Tseytlina, a lawyer practising in St   Petersburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr   M.   Galperin. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant lives in Russia since 1995. In 2001 he married the second applicant, who is a Russian national; they had two daughters, who were born in 2000 and 2005 respectively. Between 1995 and 2000 the first applicant resided in Russia illegally. Then, between 2001 and 2008, he was granted temporary asylum. In 2008 his yet another asylum request was rejected and until 2012 he resided in Russia illegally. In 2012, the first applicant requested asylum again, and his request was rejected by the authorities and upheld by the domestic courts with reference, primarily, to his failure to regularise his status earlier, given that he was married to a Russian national since 2001. The authorities refusal to grant asylum, in the situation when the first applicant’s residence in Russia was illegal, obliged him to leave the country only either through deportation or administrative removal entailing subsequent five-year re ‑ entry ban. The applicants alleged that in the absence of the possibility for the second applicant and their daughters to join the first applicant in Afghanistan, the five-year re-entry ban for the first applicant would disrupt their family life. On 24 October 2017 the applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations by 9 April 2018. On 10 April 2018, by letter dated 23 March 2018, the applicants’ lawyer informed the Registry that that the applicants wanted to withdraw their application since on an unspecified date the Russian authorities had granted the first applicant a temporary residence permit. Given his intent to apply for Russian nationality, the applicants requested the Court that the proceedings concerning their application be terminated. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 June 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar   President