CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 mai 2020

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1558821B { width:179.6pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 25625/14 Karlen AGADZHANYAN against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 May 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 March 2014, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Karlen Agadzhanyan, is an Armenian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Arsk. He was represented before the Court by Mr Boris Rybak, a lawyer practising in Kazan. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Government before the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr M. Galperin, his successor in that office. The circumstances of the case Background information and refusal to issue the applicant with a residence permit On an unspecified date prior to 2005 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 1986) the applicant arrived in Russia. It is unclear on what basis he resided in the country. On 1 September 2005 the applicant was fined for an administrative offence relating to breaching conditions of his residence in Russia. According to the applicant, at some point between 2005 and 2008 he started living as a family with a Russian national, Ms I.R., with whom he had a son in 2008. On 5 February 2011 the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit valid until 5 February 2014. Several days later, on 11 February 2011 the applicant was found guilty of another administrative offence relating to breaching conditions of his residence in Russia and was given a fine. On 9 January 2013 the applicant applied for an extension of his residence permit. The application form requested information as to whether he had committed any administrative offences relating to breaching conditions of his stay in Russia, and if so, how many times and when. The applicant replied in the negative. In the same application form, he stated that he was single, never married, had no children and had parents and three adult siblings, all of whom lived in Russia. On 1 July 2013 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 22 July 2013) the Tatarstan Department of the Federal Migration Service ( Управление Федеральной миграционной службы России по Республике Татарстан , hereafter “the FMS”) refused to issue the applicant with a residence permit on the grounds that he had provided incorrect information. In particular, it stated that he failed to mention the facts of his administrative convictions in 2005 and 2011 in the application form. Appeal against the refusal to issue the applicant with a residence permit The applicant appealed against the refusal of 1 July 2013 to the Vakhitovskiy District Court in Kazan ( Вахитовский районный суд города Казани , hereafter “the District Court”). On 27 August 2013 the District Court rejected the appeal, finding that, under the domestic legislation, the applicant was obliged to provide the FMS with information about his previous administrative convictions in Russia, which he had failed to do for no valid reason. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan (hereafter “the Regional Court”), stating that he had been living in Russia since 1986 and had a stable job and a family – a wife and child. He further stated that the refusal to issue him with a residence permit had contravened certain provisions of the domestic law, which, in his opinion, absolved him of the responsibility to provide the FMS with information about his previous administrative convictions. From the case file as it stands it is unclear whether the applicant submitted to the Regional Court any evidence substantiating his allegations of family life with Ms I.R. and their son. On 9 December 2013 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal, having endorsed the findings of the District Court. Information submitted by the Government According to the Government’s submission of 24 March 2017, the refusal of 1 July 2013 to extend the applicant’s residence permit did not imply that he was obliged to leave Russia as there were neither deportation nor removal orders issued against him and he continued to reside in Russia unimpeded. Moreover, on 1 September 2014 the applicant was granted a residence permit authorising his stay in Russia until 1 September 2017. The applicant did not comment on the factual information submitted by the Government. Relevant domestic law For a summary of the relevant domestic law and international materials see Muradeli v. Russia , no. 72780/12, §§ 45-55, 9 April 2015. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the refusal of 1 July 2013 to issue him with the residence permit violated his right to respect for his family life, as it deprived him of a legal basis to remain in Russia. Under Article 13 of the Convention he complained of the lack of effective domestic remedies against the violation alleged. THE LAW The applicant complained that the refusal of the Russian authorities to extend his resident permit had deprived him of lawful grounds to reside in Russia and subjected him to the risk of deportation, which would adversely affect his right to respect for his family life. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” The Government’s submission The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded. They pointed out that when applying for the extension of his residence permit in 2013, the applicant had deliberately omitted the information concerning his administrative infractions in 2005 and 2011. Furthermore, in the same application form he had stated that he had not had family life in Russia as he had been single and childless. Most importantly, the domestic authorities had never issued a deportation or removal order in respect of the applicant, who continued to reside in Russia. The applicant’s submission The applicant commented neither on the Government’s submission on the admissibility of the application, nor on their factual information concerning the issuance in September 2014 of the residence permit authorising his stay in Russia. The Court’s assessment At the outset, the Court notes that the applicant did not inform the Court of developments in his case which had occurred after lodging the application at the Court, despite being expressly required to do so by Rule   47 § 7 (former Rule 47 § 6) of the Rules of Court, which provides as follows: “7.     Applicants shall keep the Court informed of ... all circumstances relevant to the application.” The applicant neither commented on the developments in his case, of which the Court was informed by the Government’s submission of 24   March 2017, nor specified the reasons for failing to inform the Court about them. The Court further notes that the Russian authorities took no steps towards the applicant’s removal, deportation or exclusion during the period between December 2013 and September 2014, when he was granted the three-year residence permit. The applicant continued to reside in the country unimpeded. Given the absence of any decision banning the applicant’s residence in Russia, the Court finds unsubstantiated his arguments concerning the potential adverse effects of the refusal of 1 July 2013 on his family life. In view of the above, the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention is manifestly ill ‑ founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. As regards the applicant’s Article 13 complaint, the Court considers that it is unsubstantiated and should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 June 2020. Olga Chernishova   Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar   President