CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 23 novembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD9FE5EFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s976A52B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA44C4BD0 { width:18.45pt; display:inline-block } .s216EAC7D { width:0.82pt; display:inline-block } .s716C64EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sC277F9BE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF3D92BB3 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sAD1DAC71 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .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 } .sA04AE28A { width:35.22pt; display:inline-block } .s264C88EB { width:142.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF CORLEY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 292/06 and 43490/06)   JUDGMENT Art 1 P7 • Expulsion of foreign nationals without basis in substantive law and without providing the applicants a realistic possibility to exercise their rights Art 2 P4 • Freedom of movement • Sanction for failure to register a change of place of stay within three-day time-limit not in accordance with the law Art 9 • Freedom of religion • Unjustified interference through singling out applicants for special treatment paving the way for their precipitated departure, for reasons connected to their religious work Art 8 • Interference with family life of family members being expelled as well as those who stayed behind in Russia, in breach of domestic law Art 3 • Degrading treatment • Placement in cell without provision for meeting basic needs Art 5 § 1 • Unlawful detention carried out for the purpose of leveraging release in order to obtain applicant’s consent to leave Russia without appealing Art 5 § 5 • No enforceable right to compensation for Art 5 § 1 violation   STRASBOURG 23 November 2021   FINAL   23/02/2022   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Corley and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   María Elósegui,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Andreas Zünd,   Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   292/06 and 43490/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the Corley and Igarashi families (“the applicants”), on 4   January and 23   October 2006, respectively; the decision to give notice of part of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 5 and 19 October 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the enforced departure of foreign religious workers who had been compelled to leave Russia before exercising their procedural rights. It also addresses the questions of whether the measures compelling their departure were connected with their exercise of the right to freedom of religion and whether they unduly interfered with the right to respect for family life of the principal applicants and their family members. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr   D. Holiner and Ms   G. Krylova , lawyers practising in London and Moscow respectively. 3.     The Government were initially represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin and M. Galperin, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in this office, Mr   M. Vinogradov. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants The Corley family (application no.   292/06) 5.     The applicants – Mr   John Alphonsus Corley, his wife Renée Michele Corley, and their son Nikolai Soo Il Corley – are citizens of the United States of America. They were born in 1953, 1952 and 1995 respectively and now live in Irvington, NY, USA. 6 .     Mr   Corley had lived in Moscow since August 1990. He was the head of the Russian branch of the International Education Foundation USA, Inc., an American non-profit organisation and part of the Unification Church, a religious movement founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon in 1954. He was responsible for coordinating legal and public affairs in the Unification Church of Eurasia, which oversees the Church’s activities in Russia and the former Soviet Union. Within the canonical structure of the Unification Church of Eurasia, he was the direct supervisor of Mr   Patrick Nolan, who was also an applicant before the Court (see Nolan and K. v.   Russia , no.   2512/04, 12   February 2009). 7 .     In June 1991 Ms   Corley joined her husband in Moscow, where their son Nikolai was born. The Igarashi family (application no.   43490/06) 8.     The applicants – Mr   Shuji Igarashi, his wife Toshiko Igarashi, and their daughter Hanae Igarashi – are Japanese nationals. They were born in 1946, 1947 and 1982 respectively and now live in Kawasaki, Japan. 9 .     The Igarashi family had lived in Russia since 1993. Mr   Igarashi was a missionary of the Unification Church. At the time of his expulsion, he was the highest-ranking official in the canonical structure of the Unification Church of Eurasia, and the supervisor of Mr   Nolan and Mr   Corley. Legal status of the Unification Church in Russia 10.     On 21   May 1991 the Unification Church was registered as a religious association in the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. 11 .     On 29   December 2000 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation granted State re-registration to the Unification Church at federal level as a centralised religious organisation. It did so on the basis of an expert opinion from the Expert Council for conducting State expert studies in religious matters, which stated in particular as follows: “In the Russian Federation, neither the Unification Church nor its leaders have ever been held criminally liable. No violations of the federal law on freedom of conscience and religious associations on the part of the Unification Church or its representatives have been established. Thus, (1) the Unification Church is a religious, non ‑ commercial organisation and, accordingly, has the characteristics of a religious association within the meaning of section   6(1) of the Religions Act; and (2) no indication of unlawful activities has been uncovered in its religious teachings and corresponding practice.” The events leading up to Mr   Corley’s departure 12.     Mr   Corley’s leave to stay in Russia was renewed on an annual basis through invitations issued by organisations associated with the Unification Church. 13.     On 22   June 2005 the police fined Mr   Corley for residing at an address in Moscow which was different from his registered residence. No   fine was issued to his family members. 14.     On 5   September 2005 his leave to stay was extended until 12   June 2006 and he registered his stay with the Passport and Visa Department. 15.     On 27   October 2005 the police issued Mr   Corley with a new fine for the same offence. 16 .     On 26   December 2005 a police officer in uniform and two persons in plain clothes who did not introduce themselves, showed up at the Corley family’s home and demanded that Mr   Corley surrender his identity documents to “check the validity” of his registration with the Passport and Visa Department. He was told that he would later retrieve his documents from the police office. On 29   December 2005 Mr   Corley arrived at the Department offices, where he received his passport and a new leave to stay dated 27   December 2005 with an expiry date of 6   January 2006. No   explanation was provided, apart from a verbal warning to leave Russia voluntarily by 6   January 2006 or be expelled. A clerk made him sign a statement acknowledging that he had received the warning. 17 .     Mr   Corley immediately left for the Basmanniy District Court in Moscow, which has territorial jurisdiction over the Department’s offices. He wished to lodge an application for judicial review of the legality of the decision revoking his previous leave to stay and requiring him to leave the country, along with an urgent application for suspensive relief pending a full examination of his complaint. Upon arrival at the District Court, Mr   Corley learnt that the Moscow courts had been closed for the New Year’s holidays on 26   December 2005 and that judges were not accepting any new applications from the public until 12   January 2006. 18 .     On 30   December 2005 Mr   Corley sent his application for judicial review and suspensive relief to the District Court by courier, and it was stamped by the registry as received on the same day. In the following days Mr   Corley’s assistants called thirteen courts in Moscow in unsuccessful attempts to find a judge who would consider an application for suspensive relief. On 6   January 2006 Mr   Corley delivered additional applications for suspensive relief to the Zamoskvoretskiy and Lyublinskiy District Courts, which had territorial jurisdiction over the place of his residence. He also sent complaints by registered post to the Passport and Visa Department, the Federal Migration Service and the Moscow Prosecutor’s office, in which he pointed out that he had lodged a judicial challenge against the revocation which, in accordance with Article   1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, ought to be examined before any attempted expulsion. 19 .     On Saturday, 7   January 2006, at about 9   a.m., a group of at least eight uniformed officers, headed by Police Inspector Y., came to Mr   Corley’s office, looking for him. The group included officers of the municipal police, the Federal Migration Service and the Federal Security Service (FSB). Mr   Corley was not in the office. On the officers’ insistence, his interpreter contacted him by phone and a meeting was arranged at the police station. When Mr   Corley arrived, Inspector Y. informed him that he was being charged with overstaying his leave and presented a report on an administrative offence and a judgment finding him guilty as charged and imposing a fine on him. Inspector Y. also told him that he must leave the country immediately under the officers’ supervision. 20 .     Mr   Corley submitted a written statement, noting that he was insisting on a judicial review of the decision revoking his leave to stay in accordance with Article   1 of Protocol No. 7, and also requested the presence of his counsel in any administrative proceedings against him. His interpreter drove him to the airport, and the officers followed in a separate car. Mr   Corley chose to fly to Latvia, to remain close to his family, who stayed behind. The officers accompanied him right up to the passport control booth. 21.     On 17   January 2006 counsel for Mr   Corley lodged an appeal against the judgment of 7   January 2006 with the Lyublinskiy District Court. He submitted that, in breach of the procedural requirements, the case had not been heard by the police chief or a court, that he had been denied the opportunity to be represented by a lawyer and that the judgment had not been signed and had not contained any reasons. 22.     On 25   January 2006 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court rejected the application for suspensive relief as not founded on “sufficient evidence”. It listed the hearing on the substantive issue for 16   February 2006. 23 .     On 16   February 2006 a representative of the Passport and Visa Department submitted a written defence to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court, stating that the decision revoking Mr   Corley’s visa had been lawful in the light of his previous convictions for violating residence regulations. According to the internal records submitted as evidence by the Department, Mr   Corley’s leave to stay had been terminated, and the new one issued, at the request of an organisation identified by the number 28. The representative of the Department told Mr   Corley’s counsel that code 28 stood for the FSB and that the FSB had already banned Mr   Corley’s entry into Russia since 6   December 2005. 24.     On 7   March 2006 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court heard oral submissions by Mr   Corley’s representatives and dismissed his claim, holding that the decision to revoke the visa and order his departure from Russia had been lawful because he had twice been previously convicted of violations of residence regulations. It noted that the decisions of 22 June and 27   October 2005, by which Mr   Corley had been found guilty of administrative offences, had not been challenged or quashed. As regards Mr   Corley’s claim that his expulsion had amounted to unjustified interference with the right to respect for his private and family life, the District Court held that the contested decision did not affect the rights of his wife and son, who had come to Russia together with him and had a foreign nationality. 25.     On 18   May 2006 the Moscow City Court dismissed an appeal against the District Court’s judgment. 26 .     In the meantime, on 2   March 2006 the Lyublinskiy District Court quashed the judgment of 7   January 2006 because Mr   Corley’s request for a lawyer had been ignored and because it had not been signed by the official competent to issue it. It sent the matter back for a new hearing by the head of the Lyublino police station in Moscow on 6   March 2006. 27.     When counsel for Mr   Corley arrived at the Lyublino police station on 6   March 2006, neither the chief nor Inspector Y. were present. On 10   April 2006 the Lyublino police informed counsel that there would be no hearing in respect of the offence established on 7   January 2006 because the proceedings had been discontinued following the expiry of the two-month statute of limitations. 28 .     On 30   May 2006, after Mr   Nikolai Corley had completed the school year, Ms   Corley and Mr   Nikolai Corley left Russia to join Mr   Corley in the United States of America. Mr   Igarashi’s arrest, conviction and departure 29.     On 28   January 2006 Mr   Igarashi travelled from Moscow to Yekaterinburg, where he had his residence registered at a friend’s home until 10   February 2006. 30.     On 2   February 2006 Mr   Igarashi came to the settlement of Polevskoy in the Sverdlovsk Region – the region surrounding the city of Yekaterinburg – to participate in a religious seminar held at the Skazy Bazhova sanatorium. 31 .     On the morning of 5   February 2006, a Sunday, six officers from the local police and the FSB arrived at the sanatorium to “check Mr   Igarashi’s passport”. They noted that he had not had his residence registered with the Polevskoy police. Mr   Igarashi replied that he had arrived only on 2   February 2006 – that is, less than three days previously. The officers told Mr   Igarashi to sign a document in Russian – a language Mr   Igarashi did not speak – and to follow them to the Polevskoy Town Court. 32 .     It being a Sunday, a non-working day for courts in Russia, the Town Court was specially opened for Mr   Igarashi upon his arrival and a judge was present. The judge commenced consideration of the police charge that Mr   Igarashi had committed a violation of residence regulations. Mr   Igarashi did not have a lawyer present, nor was he provided with one. A member of his congregation, Mr   Ch., who spoke some English, was appointed as interpreter for Mr   Igarashi. 33.     The Polevskoy Town Court immediately issued a judgment, which read as follows: “At noon on 5   February 2006, a passport check at the address ... Bazhova Street uncovered the Japanese national Shuji Igarashi, who had lived in the territory of the Polevskoy settlement since 2   February 2006 without having his residence registered. This is confirmed by the materials submitted [to the court] and the explanations by Shuji Igarashi... Shuji Igarashi committed an administrative offence under Article   18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences, that is a violation by a foreign national of the rules on residence in the Russian Federation, in that he did not comply with the established procedure for residence registration. Taking into account the fact that Shuji Igarashi has not taken, and is not taking, any steps to have his residence in the settlement of Polevskoy registered, that he has no work permit and is not doing any socially useful work, that he has a registered residence in another Russian town and that he did not inform the [police] of his intention to change his place of residence, the judge decides that he must be expelled from Russia.” 34.     The Town Court additionally fined Mr   Igarashi 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and ordered his detention pending expulsion. Mr   Igarashi was immediately taken to a cell at the Yekaterinburg detention centre for asylum seekers and people awaiting extradition. 35.     The parties provided partly divergent accounts of the conditions in which Mr   Igarashi had been detained. They concurred that the cell where Mr   Igarashi had been held had had an area of fifteen square metres. According to Mr   Igarashi, he had shared it with twenty other detainees, including children; the Government relied on statements by the detention centre officers, who claimed that only four persons had been held in the cell. The Government indicated that the cell had been “equipped”, without specifying the elements making up that equipment. Mr   Igarashi stated that there had been no beds, sheets or blankets, and that detainees had been forced to sleep on a cold wooden floor. The in-cell toilet was separated from the rest of the cell by a one-metre-high partition. As there was no toilet paper, detainees were forced to wipe themselves with their bare hands and wash them in the sole washbasin in the cell, which supplied only cold water. The case file contains the lists of items that Mr   Ch. had passed to Mr   Igarashi, which included various food items, rolls of toilet paper, a sleeping bag, a winter jacket and mittens. 36 .     On 8   February 2006, officers of the local Passport and Visa Department visited Mr   Igarashi in his cell and offered him release in exchange for his signature on the following pre-printed text: “I, Shuji Igarashi ... affirm that I have committed an administrative offence in Russian territory, that I have received a copy of the judgment, and that I have no intention to lodge an appeal.” 37 .     Mr   Igarashi signed the text and was taken out of the cell. He learned from Mr   Ch. that two days previously an official of the Passport and Visa Department, Mr   B., had made him sign a letter of guarantee, which was a precondition for Mr   Igarashi’s release. The letter read as follows: “In connection with the expulsion of the Japanese national Shuji Igarashi, I undertake to pay his air fare for the route Yekaterinburg-Moscow-Tokyo, as well as the air fare for two accompanying officers of the Federal Migration Service from Yekaterinburg to Moscow and their return train tickets from Moscow to Yekaterinburg. I undertake to pay the food and lodging expenses of the Federal Migration Service officials. Should there be a delay ... I agree to cover their accommodation expenses.” 38 .     Mr   Igarashi was taken from the detention facility directly to the airport and left Russia the same day, 8   February 2006. He was allowed a brief pre-departure meeting with his wife. The letter of guarantee bears a handwritten note: “The undertaking has been executed. Senior Inspector of the Federal Migration Service [name and signature].” 39.     On 15   February 2006 Mr   Igarashi lodged an appeal, sent by express mail from Japan, against the Town Court’s judgment of 5   February 2006. 40 .     On 22   February 2006 the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper, a publication founded and funded by the Government, which also appoints and dismisses its chief editor, published the article “ComMoonism has come to the Urals”. The article, which cited unnamed “law-enforcement bodies” as its source, referred to the expulsion of Mr   Corley and Mr   Igarashi in the context of a State campaign against the Unification Church. 41 .     On 21   April 2006 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court examined Mr   Igarashi’s appeal and heard oral submissions by his counsel. It found that Mr   Igarashi had not committed any administrative offence. By the time of his arrest and conviction on 5   February 2006 the three-day time-limit for having a new residence registered had not yet expired, since he had arrived at Polevskoy on 2   February 2006. The Regional Court quashed the judgment of 5   February 2006 as unlawful, and discontinued the proceedings against Mr   Igarashi. 42 .     Ms   Hanae Igarashi, who was a student at Ulyanovsk University, continued her education in Russia until at least February 2007. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK Domestic law Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation (President’s Decree no.   1300 of 17   December 1997) 43 .     On 10   January 2000 the acting President of the Russian Federation, by Decree no.   24, amended the Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation. The relevant paragraph of Chapter IV, “Ensuring the National Security of the Russian Federation”, was amended to read: “Ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation also includes the protection of its ... spiritual and moral heritage ... the forming of a State policy in the field of spiritual and moral education of the population ... and also includes opposing the negative influence of foreign religious organisations and missionaries ...” Foreign Nationals Act (Law no.   115-FZ of 25   July 2002) 44.     A foreign national must be registered within three working days of his or her arrival in Russia (section   20(1)). Registration of foreign nationals is processed at their place of stay in the Russian Federation. Should the place of stay change, the foreign national is required to be registered within three working days from the date of arrival at the new place of stay (section   21(3)). 45 .     As worded in 2006, section   5(3) provided that an authorised period of stay in Russia could be reduced “if the conditions on which the foreign national was allowed entry into Russia have changed or ceased to exist”. Law no.   224-FZ of 23   July 2013 amended section   5(3) by adding that the period of stay could also be reduced if a decision banning the foreign national’s entry into Russia was adopted. Entry and Exit Procedures Act (Law no.   114-FZ of 15   August 1996) 46 .     A foreign national may be denied admission to Russia if he or she has been convicted of administrative offences two or more times in the past three years (Section 26(4), as worded at the material time). Code of Administrative Offences 47.     A foreign national who violates the registration requirements, including by non-compliance with the established registration procedure or by evading exit from Russia upon expiry of the authorised period of stay, is liable to an administrative fine of up to RUB   1,000 and optional expulsion from Russia (Article   18.8, as worded at the material time). A report of the offence described in Article   18.8 may be drawn up by officials of the State migration authorities (Article   28.3 §   2 (15)). This report must be forwarded within one day to a judge or an officer competent to adjudicate administrative matters (Article   28.8). The determination of an administrative charge that may result in expulsion from Russia is to be made by a judge of a court of general jurisdiction (Article   23.1 §   3). A right of appeal against a decision on an administrative offence lies to a court or to a higher court (Article   30.1 §   1). EXPLANATORY REPORT TO PROTOCOL No . 7 48 .     The Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 7 (ETS No. 117) defines the scope of application of Article   1 of Protocol No. 7 as follows: “10. The concept of expulsion is used in a generic sense as meaning any measure compelling the departure of an alien from the territory but does not include extradition. Expulsion in this sense is an autonomous concept which is independent of any definition contained in domestic legislation ...” THE LAW MATTERS OF PROCEDURE Joinder of the applications 49.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Order of examination of the complaints 50.     The Court will first examine the alleged violations of Article   1 of Protocol No. 7 and Article   2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention in the proceedings leading to Mr   Corley’s and Mr   Igarashi’s departure from Russia, before embarking on an assessment of the complaints of violations of the right to freedom of religion and the right to respect for their family life. It will conclude with complaints relating to matters which are the subject of the Court’s well-established case-law and inadmissible complaints. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No . 7 IN   RESPECT OF Mr CORLEY AND Mr IGARASHI 51.     The applicants Mr   Corley and Mr   Igarashi complained that the measures to shorten the authorised period of Mr   Corley’s stay in Russia and to expel Mr   Igarashi had not been carried out “in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law” and that they had not been afforded the procedural safeguards required under Article   1 of Protocol No. 7, which reads: “1.     An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed: (a)     to submit reasons against his expulsion, (b)     to have his case reviewed, and (c)     to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons designated by that authority. 2.     An alien may be expelled before the exercise of his rights under paragraph   1 (a), (b) and   (c) of this Article, when such expulsion is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security.” Admissibility 52.     The Government submitted that the replacement of Mr   Corley’s leave to stay with a new one of a shorter duration had not constituted an “expulsion” for the purposes of Article   1 of Protocol No. 7. He had also failed to exhaust the effective domestic remedies. The decision to shorten his stay in Russia had been taken in connection with his repeated violations of residence regulations and had not involved his administrative removal. Mr   Corley had had sufficient time to apply for judicial review of the decisions of 22 June and 27   October 2005 but instead he had sought to exercise his procedural rights over the period of the New Year’s holidays. 53 .     The Court finds that the conditions for applicability of Article   1 of Protocol No. 7 have been met in respect of both Mr   Corley and Mr   Igarashi. It was not disputed that both of them had been “lawfully resident” in the Russian territory. The decision to reduce the authorised period of Mr   Corley’s stay by means of replacing his valid leave to stay with a new one of a shorter duration had the effect of terminating his residence in Russia, which he had continuously enjoyed for more than sixteen years, since 1990. The decision was accompanied by an express warning compelling him to leave Russia within the specified time-limit or face expulsion (see paragraph 16 above). It was therefore a “measure compelling [his] departure” which amounted to “expulsion” in the autonomous sense of this term, independent of any classification of that measure in Russian law (see point 10 of the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 7 in paragraph 48 above, and also Ljatifi v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   19017/16, §   22, 17   May 2018; Nolan and K. v.   Russia , no.   2512/04, §   112, 12   February 2009; and Bolat v.   Russia , no.   14139/03, §   79, ECHR   2006-XI ). As to Mr   Igarashi, the Court notes that his expulsion was ordered by the Town Court. It cannot be described as a voluntary departure, given that he was taken to the airport and onwards to Moscow under police escort and placed on board a Tokyo-bound aircraft (compare Bolat , cited above). 54.     In so far as the Government contended that Mr   Corley had not challenged the decisions of 22 June and 27   October 2005 before a court, the Court notes that the present complaint concerns the decision to reduce the authorised period of his stay by means of issuing a new leave to stay. This was a separate and discrete measure rather than an automatic or mandatory consequence of any previous conviction (see, by contrast, Gablishvili v.   Russia , no.   39428/12, §   49, 26   June 2014 ), and it was also amenable to a judicial review, which took place only after Mr   Corley’s enforced departure. The Government’s argument as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies is therefore misconceived and must be rejected. 55.     The Court considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 56.     Mr   Corley submitted that the decision to reduce the authorised period of his stay had breached both the procedural rules and the provisions of substantive law. The only provision of the Foreign Nationals Act which authorised the police to reduce the period of stay was section   5(3), but it had never been invoked in the domestic proceedings and, in any event, did not apply to his situation since he had been expelled allegedly for violations of residence regulations rather than on account of any change in circumstances. Prior to his enforced departure on 7   January 2006, he had applied to many officials and courts seeking a review of his expulsion but all of them had either been unavailable or had refused to consider his complaint. While a judicial review had ultimately been granted, that had only occurred after he had been expelled in breach of Article   1 of Protocol   No. 7. Mr   Igarashi pointed out that a decision on his expulsion had not been reached in accordance with substantive law, as acknowledged by the Regional Court. It had also been in breach of the procedural rules in that he had been expelled before the appeal period had expired and that the alleged waiver of the right to appeal had been obtained under duress and had also been invalid under domestic law. Notwithstanding any formal notification of his right to a lawyer, the process had been performed as a formality by the police and the court, which had manifested their resolve to convict and imprison him that same day. He had been assisted by Mr   Ch., who had been neither a qualified interpreter nor a Japanese speaker. 57.     The Government submitted that the decision to replace Mr   Corley’s leave to stay with a new one had been based on section   26 of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act. In their view, the Russian authorities could not be held responsible for Mr   Corley’s decision to take judicial proceedings during a holiday period, just six days before the expiry of his leave to stay. On 7   January 2006 the police had found a third violation of residence regulations, which, in the Government’s view, meant that Mr   Corley had not drawn any lessons from his previous convictions or made any attempt to regularise his stay but had gone on “committing gross and explicit violations of the Russian migration law”. Mr   Corley’s complaint had been considered and rejected by the Moscow courts at two levels of jurisdiction. As to Mr   Igarashi, the Government submitted that he had been present at the hearing before the Town Court and had been able to make submissions and requests. However, he had not asked for a lawyer to be appointed to represent him, while the Code of Administrative Offences did not require the court to appoint one in the absence of a request to that effect. Mr   Igarashi had voluntarily decided to leave Russia before the expiry of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the Town Court’s decision and had given a written statement to that effect. 58.     The Court reiterates that the High Contracting Parties have a discretionary power to decide whether to expel an alien present in their territory. This power, however, must be exercised in such a way as not to infringe the rights under the Convention of the person concerned (see Nolan   and K. , §   114, and Bolat , §   81, both cited above ). In addition to the protection afforded by Articles   3 and 8 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   13, aliens benefit from the specific guarantees provided for in Article   1 of Protocol No. 7 (see Lupsa v.   Romania , no.   10337/04, §   51, ECHR 2006 ‑ VII ). Paragraph 1 of this Article establishes as the basic guarantee that the person concerned may be expelled only “in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law”. The decision must be taken by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of substantive law and with the relevant procedural rules (see Sharma v.   Latvia , no.   28026/05, §   80, 24   March 2016, and Muhammad and Muhammad v.   Romania [GC], no.   80982/12, §§   117-19, 15   October 2020). 59.     As regards compliance with substantive law, neither the Migration Service’s decision replacing Mr   Corley’s leave to stay with a shorter one nor the subsequent judicial acts cited a specific legal basis for that measure. The Government referred to section   26 of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act, which, however, provides for a different type of sanction: a foreign national convicted of multiple breaches of registration requirements would be denied admission to Russia (see paragraph 46 above). A reduction in the authorised period of stay could have taken place on the basis of section   5(3) of the Foreign Nationals Act but only if there had been a change in the conditions on which the alien’s entry had been originally approved (see paragraph 45 above). As it happened, the domestic authorities did not refer to that provision or identify any changes in Mr   Corley’s situation. Even if the FSB had indeed issued a decision banning Mr   Corley’s entry into Russia (see paragraph 23 above) – the existence of which the Government neither confirmed nor denied – it did not constitute at the material time a legal basis for reducing his stay. The Foreign National Act was amended to provide for that course of action many years after the events (see paragraph 45 above). It follows that replacing Mr   Corley’s leave to stay with one of a shorter duration did not have a basis in substantive law. In the case of Mr   Igarashi, a breach of the substantive law was ultimately acknowledged at domestic level (see paragraph 41 above). 60.     Turning to the safeguards which an alien must be afforded prior to his or her expulsion, the Court notes that the domestic authorities used a stratagem to gain possession of Mr   Corley’s valid leave to stay. His identity documents had been taken away from him on the pretence of their inspection (see paragraph 16 above); he was not given advance warning of the decision to replace his leave to stay and was unable to ascertain the reasons for that decision or to submit reasons against it. In fact, the authorities gave every appearance of having wanted to ensure that Mr   Corley did not find out about the action they were preparing to take against him, so that they could the more effectively face him with a fait accompli thereafter (see, in a factually similar situation, Bozano v.   France , 18   December 1986, §   59, Series   A no.   111 ). 61.     Mr   Corley’s new leave to stay was issued one day after the Russian courts had closed for the winter holidays. It was set to expire before they would reopen for business after the holidays. Mr   Corley unsuccessfully attempted to find an open court or a duty judge available to consider his application for suspensive relief or carry out a judicial review of the measure reducing the period of his stay (see paragraphs 17 and 18 above). The Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are not theoretical or illusory, but practical and effective, which implies, in particular, that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy (see Čonka v.   Belgium , no.   51564/99, §   46, ECHR 2002 ‑ I ). By timing the new leave to stay to coincide with a period of holidays, the Russian authorities consciously created a situation in which Mr   Corley’s application for review could not be considered before his expulsion. He was therefore denied a realistic possibility of exercising his rights under Article   1 §   1 of Protocol No. 7. The Court also notes that the judgment of 7   January 2006 was eventually set aside on the grounds that he had not been represented in the proceedings (see paragraph 26 above). 62 .     Mr   Igarashi was likewise induced into believing that the police merely intended to check his documents (see paragraph 31 above). He could not reasonably have anticipated that he would be charged with a breach of residence regulations before the grace period for registering a new residence had expired. The findings by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court that he had not committed any offence confirmed that his assessment had been correct (see paragraph 41 above). The unusually fast pace of events and the suddenness with which Mr   Igarashi was charged, tried, convicted, served with an expulsion order and placed in detention pending expulsion in the course of just one Sunday morning indicate that the authorities were seeking to prevent him from making any effective use of the remedies theoretically available to him (see Bozano , cited above, §   59). He was told to sign a document in a language he did not understand and was brought before a court in circumstances which prevented him from being represented or submitting any reasons against his expulsion (see, in a factually similar situation, Nowak v.   Ukraine , no.   60846/10, §   82, 31   March 2011 ). The Court also reiterates its finding that Russian law makes no provision for any form of legal assistance or representation in administrative proceedings (see Mikhaylova v.   Russia , no.   46998/08, §§   85-102, 19   November 2015 ). 63.     The Court cannot accept the Government’s contention that Mr   Igarashi had voluntarily waived his rights under Article   1 of Protocol   No. 7 or consented to his departure. The authorities must have been aware that he had not committed any offence and that his conviction would not stand on appeal. State officials made him sign a waiver in exchange for his release. His colleague was compelled to agree to pay the travel and lodging expenses of two police officers who would accompany Mr   Igarashi until his departure from Russia (see paragraphs 36 and 37 above). Mr   Igarashi was forced to travel to Moscow flanked by two policemen, who signed for the successful completion of their mission (see paragraph 38 above, and compare Bozano , cited above, §   59 ). The waiver of the right to appeal was invalid under Russian law and was not once mentioned in the ensuing appeal proceedings. The extraordinary circumstances in which a court convicted and imprisoned Mr   Igarashi for an offence he had not committed and in which his liberty was leveraged in order to expedite his departure disclose the authorities’ determination to make him leave Russia by all means possible with little concern for legal formalities. As with Mr   Corley, the authorities deliberately created a situation in which Mr   Igarashi was denied the possibility of exercising his rights under Article   1 §   1 of Protocol No. 7 prior to his expulsion. 64.     There has therefore been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 7 in respect of the applicants Mr   Corley and Mr   Igarashi. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL N o . 4 IN RESPECT OF Mr IGARASHI 65.     Mr   Igarashi complained under Article   2 of Protocol No. 4 that he had been convicted and punished by means of a fine and expulsion for the lawful exercise of his right to freedom of movement within Russia. The relevant parts of Article   2 of Protocol No. 4 read as follows: “1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. ... 3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public , for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ...” Admissibility 66.     The Government submitted that, after the Regional Court had set aside the “erroneous” judgment of the Town Court, the infringement of Mr   Igarashi’s rights had been fully redressed. The Sverdlovsk Regional migration authority had asked the Federal Migration Service to authorise Mr   Igarashi’s entry into Russia. Mr   Igarashi had also had an enforceable right to compensation under Article   1070 of the Civil Code, which he had not used. The Government contended that he had lost the status of a “victim” of the alleged violation. 67.     Mr   Igarashi submitted that his position was no different from that of Mr   Bolat in a similar case (cited above): the Russian authorities had offered no apology, no compensation and no new visa. Simply acknowledging that he was no longer considered an offender banned from re-entering Russia did not amount to sufficient redress. Contrary to the Government’s assertion, he did not have an effective right to compen