Communicated on 2 November 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 51863/17
Kodirzhon Rustamovich ABDUSATTAROV and
Anastasiya Vladimirovna BABINA
against Russia
lodged on 6 July 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Mr Kodirzhon Abdusattarov, a national of Uzbekistan, and Ms Anastasiya Babina, a Russian national, who were born in 1972 and 1986 respectively and live in Bash-Kultayevo.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A. The first applicant’s residence in Russia and the decision on his administrative removal from the country
1. Background information
Prior to 2000 the first applicant had been living in Uzbekistan, where on an unspecified date prior to 2000, he married an Uzbek national and had two children with her.
On an unspecified date in 2000 the first applicant moved to Russia. It is unclear on what basis he was residing in the country. From the documents submitted it follows that he has not applied for Russian nationality.
According to the applicants, the first applicant did not maintain a relationship with his estranged wife in Uzbekistan, but stayed in contact over the telephone with his children there.
In 2000 the first applicant met the second applicant and in 2005 they started cohabiting. Between 2007 and 2016 they had five children, four sons and a daughter, all of whom are Russian nationals. The first applicant was officially registered as their father and was the family’s breadwinner. It is unclear whether he was officially employed.
At some point between 2007 and 2017 the applicants obtained a plot of land from the local authorities and started constructing a family house. As of 2017 the construction was in progress and roofing work was planned.
According to the applicants, the second applicant sometimes had a “tendency to consume alcohol” and on such occasions the first applicant, who as a Muslim did not consume it himself, had to take care of their children alone. In the applicants’ opinion, it showed the first applicant’s close and direct involvement in the upbringing of the children and sharing of the parental responsibilities, as well as the good family relationship between the applicants and their children, despite the occasional difficulties caused by the second applicant’s drinking problem.
The applicants submitted that the second applicant would have difficulties moving with the first applicant and their children to Uzbekistan, given, amongst other things, that she was not a Muslim and that the children were going to school in Russia and none of them, except for the first applicant, spoke the local language.
2. The decision on the first applicant’s administrative removal and his appeals against it
On 25 June 2015 the first applicant returned to Russia from a visit in Uzbekistan. His stay was authorised until 23 September 2015. According to the documents submitted, his residence registration in Russia was valid until 8 June 2016.
On 5 June 2017 the first applicant was detained by the police in Perm for a violation of Article 18 § 1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the COA”) for failing to comply with residence regulations for foreigners in Russia and overstaying the time allowed. He was placed in the Temporary Detention Centre for Foreigners in Perm.
On 6 June 2017 the first applicant was escorted to the Perm District Court (“the District Court”). At the hearing he fully admitted his guilt. He stated that he had been cohabiting with the second applicant for seventeen years, that they had five children who were all minors and that he was the breadwinner for the family. He also had an estranged wife in Uzbekistan, and his non‑dissolved marriage precluded him from officially marrying the second applicant.
On the same date the District Court found the first applicant guilty of the above-mentioned provision of the COA, fined him 4,500 Russian roubles (about 65 euros) and ordered his administrative removal from Russia, entailing a five-year re-entry ban.
In its decision the District Court stated, without specifying the relevant dates, that the first applicant had already been fined for a violation of the immigration regulations and that he had failed to pay the fine. The court also stated, without any reference to the date or the related circumstances, that the first applicant had committed acts of violence towards the second applicant and his minor children, for which he had been prosecuted. It went on to state:
“He had committed those crimes in a state of inebriation ...
From the submitted character references it follows that the family of Babina and Abdusattarov consists of seven persons, the husband has been seen consuming alcohol, the family is registered as one in a socially dangerous situation ...
The judge takes into account the circumstances of the administrative violation committed by Abdusattarov, that is the length of his unlawful residence in the Russian Federation, the repeated violation of Article 18 § 1.1 of the COA as well as the fact that Abdusattarov has not taken steps to legalise his status.
The judge finds that it is necessary to sentence Abdusattarov to administrative removal, in spite of the fact that he has family members in the Russian Federation, who are Russian nationals. It is the only possible way of achieving the goal of punishment to prevent him from committing new violations ...
Taking into account the above, as well as the information on Abdusattarov, who has not taken steps to legalise his status in the Russian Federation, who has not been officially employed and has no stable source of income ... it is necessary to fine and administratively remove him from Russia through the procedure of involuntary removal and detain him in the Temporary Detention Centre for Foreigners in Perm until the execution of the court’s decision on his administrative removal ...”
The applicants appealed against the above judgment to the Ryazan Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), alleging that the removal would disrupt their family life on account of the subsequent five-year re-entry ban. They requested that the measure be carried out through the controlled departure procedure.
On 19 June 2017 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of the District Court on appeal. It neither accorded the request for application of the controlled departure procedure nor examined the complaint concerning the disruptive effect the removal would have on the applicants’ family life.
From the documents submitted it is unclear whether the first applicant has been administratively removed from Russia and if so, when and under what circumstances.
B. Relevant domestic law
For the relevant domestic law and practice, see Muradeli v. Russia (no. 72780/12, §§ 45-55, 9 April 2015).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that in ordering the first applicant’s administrative removal, the domestic courts failed to properly examine the adverse effect of that measure on their family life and to balance the interests involved.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the decision of 6 June 2017 concerning the first applicant’s administrative removal from Russia constitute an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-60, ECHR 2006-XII, and Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, §§ 106-09, 3 October 2014)?
2. The Government are requested to provide a copy of the documents pertaining to the first applicant’s administrative removal from Russia.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy