CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s375E089 { height:77.45pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 20 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 56879/18 Mekhmet Khamdin TYURKAN against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 September 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applications concern the applicants’ exclusions from Russia due to annulment of their residence permits based on undisclosed national security reasons and the alleged failure of the domestic courts to examine properly the reasons thereof and to balance the interests involved. The applicants, who lived in Russia for a number of years and had either Russian spouses and children, or close relatives and circle of friends, were informed of annulment/revocation of their residence permits based on undisclosed information from the Federal Security Service (FSB) according to which they represented a security threat. No further details were provided. The applicants’ attempts to appeal against that sanction before the domestic courts, to refute the allegations indicating the unknown nature of the alleged wrongdoings   and to claim their disruptive effect on their private and family lives were unsuccessful, as the domestic courts confirmed the sanctions and their procedural lawfulness. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for family life in applications Tyurkan v Russia (no.56879/18) and Avezmetov v   Russia (no. 49864/19) , and of the right to respect for private life in application Rakhimov v Russia (no. 2712/20) , contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   -     The Government are invited to clarify what were the motives and factual grounds for the recommendations by the Federal Security Service to annul (revoke) the applicants’ residence permits? What was the scope of review of the domestic courts, which examined the applicants’ appeals against their respective exclusion orders?   Was the judicial review limited to ascertaining whether the orders had been delivered in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and, in particular, whether the material which formed their basis had been issued within the competence of the Federal Security Service? Was it within the courts’ competence to verify whether the orders were based on genuine national security grounds and whether the executive was able to demonstrate the existence of specific facts serving as a basis for its assessment that the applicants presented a risk in that regard? Did the courts make a balancing exercise between the need to protect national security and the applicants’ right to respect for their family life in Tyurkan v Russia (no.56879/18), Avezmetov v Russia (no. 49864/19) and the applicant’s right to respect for his private life in Rakhimov v Russia (no.   2712/20)?   -     Was the classified information from the Federal Security Service disclosed to each of the applicants or their representatives? Was each of the applicants given a fair and reasonable opportunity to refute the facts and findings contained in that material? In particular, did the courts examine other pieces of evidence to confirm or refute the allegations against the applicants? Did the applicants have an opportunity to have witnesses questioned or present other evidence?   2.     Did the applicants in Tyurkan (no.56879/18) and Avezmetov (no.   49864/19) have an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of the alleged violation of Article   8 ( De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 83, ECHR 2012)?   3.     The Government are invited to produce copies of the following:   -     materials from the Federal Security Service which served as the basis for their recommendations in respect of the each of the applicants (the Court notes that access to those documents may be restricted pursuant to Rule 33 §§ 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court);   -     documents pertaining to the reasons for the applicants’ exclusion from Russia and reflecting their current immigration status, as well as of documents showing when and under what conditions they could re-enter Russia and if so, whether they could be granted a residence permit there;   -     documents showing the possibility for an individual whose presence was declared undesirable on national security grounds to re-enter the Russian Federation and if so, under what conditions and within what time ‑ frame;   -     documents illustrating examples of cases in which individuals whose presence in Russia was declared undesirable were able subsequently to successfully re-enter Russia and obtain a residence permit there. Appendix No. Application no. and case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Final domestic decision 1. 56879/18 Tyurkan v. Russia 20/11/2018 Mr Mekhmet Khamdin TYURKAN 1981 Izhevsk Turkish   On 16 April 2018 the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the cassation appeal to its Administrative Chamber and endorsed the findings of the lower courts. The applicant was informed of that decision on 16 July 2018.   2. 49864/19 Avezmetov v. Russia 19/03/2020 Mr Urenbay Nurzhanovich AVEZMETOV 1968 Yablonovskiy Uzbekistani Ms Nataliya ZHDANOVICH On 6 December 2019 the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the cassation appeal to its Administrative Chamber and endorsed the findings of the lower courts.   3. 2712/20 Rakhimov v. Russia 25/12/2019 Mr Jakhongir Abdurakhmonovich RAKHIMOV 1995 Bukhara Uzbekistani Mr Anton RYZHOV On 28 June 2019 the Supreme Court of Russia refused to transfer the cassation appeal to its Administrative Chamber and endorsed the findings of the lower courts.