CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7E985A6D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:9pt }   Communicated on 15 April 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 44938/18 Novruz Ali ogly SHUKUROV against Russia lodged on 12 September 2018 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Novruz Ali ogly Shukurov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Sochi. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the case In 2012 the applicant moved to Russia and started cohabiting with a Russian national Ms T.S. In 2014 he and Ms T.S. purchased together a flat in Sochi where they have been residing as a family. It is unclear on what basis the applicant resided in Russia. According to the documents submitted, his stay in Russia was authorised until 28 March 2016. On 2 January 2016 the applicant and Ms T.S. had their son, I.Sh. On 13   April 2016, the applicant officially married Ms T.S. and on 27 January 2017 registered paternity in respect of his son. On 28 November 2017 the applicant was detained at home by the police for a breach of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences on account of his failure to apply for a renewal of his period of authorised stay, which had expired on 28 March 2016. In his statement to the Tsentralniy District Court in Sochi on the same date, the applicant stated that he had been living in Russia with his wife Ms T.S. and their son Mr I.Sh. and that he had overstayed the term of the authorised stay as he had assisted his wife with their new-born son. On 28 November 2017 the Tsentralniy District Court ordered that the applicant be fined RUB 2,000 and that he be subjected to administrative removal (expulsion) from Russia to Azerbaijan, which also implied a subsequent five-year entry ban. The court ordered the applicant’s detention pending expulsion in the Centre of Temporary Detention for Foreign nationals in the village of Novoukrainskoye in the Krasnodar Region. In its decision, the court did not examine the applicant’s submission concerning his family life with wife and son. The applicant appealed against the above decision, alleging that his removal and five-year re-entry ban would constitute a disproportionate measure in view of his family life. On 15 December 2017 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision on appeal. As regards the adverse effect of the removal on the applicant’s family life, the court stated as follows: “... in the opinion of the judge of the Regional court, the person who claims that his private interests and his family life should be respected, should not abuse his rights and try to avoid the punishment for the infraction encroaching upon the state and the society only because he has family, children and that it gives him the right to respect for private and family life and [implies] not ordering mandatory administrative removal for an administrative infraction. The aim of fulfilment of the right to respect for family life should be protection of family and its values and not use of the family for the purpose of avoiding of the punishment deserved ...” On 6 March and then on 21 June 2018 the Krasnodar Regional Court and the Russia Supreme Court respectively upheld the above decision on cassation appeal, having left the applicant’s allegation of the adverse effect of the removal on his family life without examination. It is unclear whether the applicant has been removed from Russia to Azerbaijan and if so, under what circumstances. B.     Relevant domestic law For a summary of relevant domestic law see Guliyev and Sheina v.   Russia , no. 29790/14, § 25-34, 17 April 2018. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision of the Tsentralniy District Court in Sochi of 28 November 2017 concerning his administrative removal from Russia was a disproportionate measure and violated his right to respect for family life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to administrative removal/deportation from Russia following the decision of 28 November 2017 the Tsentralniy District Court in Sochi? If so, when and under what circumstances? The Government are invited to submit all the documents pertaining to the deportation/removal procedure.   2.     Has the applicant complied with the six-month time limit (see, for example, Smadikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 10810/15 and S.K. v. Russia , no.   52722/15, § 81, 14 February 2017)? The applicant is invited to inform the Court about the reasons concerning lodging of his application more than six months later after the decision of the Krasnodar Regional Court of 15   December 2017.   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the applicant (see, for example, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no.   46410/99, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII)? In particular, did the domestic authorities strike a fair balance between the grounds underlying their decision to subject the applicant to administrative removal and his right to respect for family life?