CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2022

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sAF6D6C7B { width:125.4%; border-collapse:collapse } .sE5C3E3B0 { width:18.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA72C03B2 { width:20.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEAFE4EBD { width:17.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4723245D { width:43.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2196B20D { width:18.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBD69107B { width:20.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s78E29942 { width:17.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA628EE1 { width:43.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } Published on 28 February 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 11346/20 Aleksandr KROPACHEV against Russia lodged on 6 February 2020 communicated on 8 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s removal from Russia with subsequent five-year re-entry ban for a violation of administrative regulations concerning consumption of a non-prescription drug and the domestic courts’ failure to balance properly the public interest against the applicant’s right to respect for his family life with his minor daughter. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the removal order issued on 24 September 2019 in respect of the applicant constitute an interference with his right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts duly examine his allegations of its adverse effect on his family life (see Üner v.   the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR   2006 ‑ XII, and see Jeunesse v.   the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 109, 3 October 2014)?   2.     The Government are requested to submit a copy of the documents pertaining to the applicant’s administrative removal from Russia. APPENDIX No. of the application and the date of lodging Applicant’s Name and year of birth Nationality   Place of residence Final domestic decision(s) No.   11346/20   Lodged on 6   February 2020 Mr Aleksandr KROPACHEV 1987 Ukrainian   Krasnokamsk, Russia On 8 October 2019 the Perm Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. On 27 January 2020 the Seventh Cassations Court upheld the removal order.