Communicated on 23 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 11338/15
Syanzhun MEN
against Russia
lodged on 27 February 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Men Syanzhun, is a Chinese national who was born in 1973 and lives in Kalachinsk, Omsk Region. She is represented before the Court by Mr David Karamanukyan, a lawyer practising in Rostovka.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background information and decision to revoke the applicant’s residence permit
In 1992 the applicant moved to Russia, where she married and gave birth to two children. Her husband and children, who were born 1999 and 2007, are also Chinese nationals. The applicant and her family have lived in Russia on the basis of regularly extended temporary (three-year) residence permits. They currently live in the town of Kalachinsk, Omsk Region.
In October and December 2012 and in January 2013 the applicant was found guilty of three administrative traffic offences (speeding) and was ordered to pay fines of between 100 to 300 Russian roubles (approximately 1.34 to 4.03 euros).
On 25 February 2014 the Omsk Region department of the Federal Migration Service (Управление Федеральной миграционной службы России по Омской области (ФМС)) (hereinafter “the FMS”) imposed a two year ban on the applicant’s entry to Russia. The FMS referred to section 26(4) of the Federal Law on the Procedure for Entering and Leaving the Russian Federation (“the Exit and Entry Procedure Act”) which provides, inter alia, that an entry ban may be imposed on a foreign national if he or she has been convicted of two or more administrative offences committed on the territory of the Russian Federation. Such bans may be imposed within three years of the last administrative conviction.
On 27 February 2014 the FMS revoked the applicant’s residence permit, referring to section 9(2) of the Federal Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners in the Russian Federation (hereinafter “the Foreign Nationals Act”) which provides that a resident permit issued to a foreign national should be revoked if a ban has been imposed on his or her entry to the Russian Federation.
On 27 February 2014 the FMS sent a notice to the applicant informing her that a decision to revoke her residence permit had been taken under section 9(2) of the Foreign Nationals Act.
The notice also stated that she had to leave Russia within fifteen days of the decision and that she would be subjected to deportation should she fail to comply.
At the time the present application was lodged the applicant was in a detention centre awaiting deportation from Russia.
2. Appeal against the expulsion decision in the domestic courts
On 18 March 2014 the applicant complained to the Kuybyshevskiy District Court in Omsk (hereinafter “the District Court”) that the decision to revoke her residence permit disregarded the fact that she and her family had been living in Russia for a long time and had established close cultural ties with the country. Her expulsion would separate her from her husband and children and would therefore amount to a disproportionate interference with her family life.
On 27 March 2014 the District Court ruled in the applicant’s favour. Referring, amongst other things, to her long-term residence in Russia and the fact that her close family was living there on a permanent basis, it held that separating her from her husband and children would breach her family rights.
The FMS appealed against that decision to the Omsk Regional Court (hereinafter “the Regional Court”), noting that the measure imposed on the applicant was justified by the fact that she had committed three administrative offences within the last three years. Furthermore, her children and husband were Chinese nationals. They had all regularly had long-term visits to China. The FMS also stressed that despite the lengthy term of residence in Russia, neither the applicant nor her husband and children had made any attempts to obtain Russian citizenship.
On 10 June 2014 the Regional Court overruled the District Court’s decision and adopted a new one, rejecting the applicant’s complaint. In assessing the proportionality of the expulsion decision, it took the view that the applicant was a repeat offender who had committed several administrative offences despite being aware of its adverse effect on her residence status in Russia. It stressed that none of the close members of her family had Russian citizenship; both her children and husband were Chinese nationals. The court also concluded that in the circumstances, given that the applicant had committed several administrative offences during the last three years, the measure imposed on her was adequate and proportionate.
The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the above-mentioned decision alleging, in particular, that the decision to revoke her residence permit was disproportionate given her family situation, the level of her integration into Russian society and the minor nature of the administrative offences she had been convicted of.
On 1 September 2014 a judge of the Regional Court refused the applicant leave to cassation appeal, stating that the appellate court had duly examined the legal basis needed for the measure at issue and that its decision had been lawful and reasonable.
On 14 November 2014 a judge of the Supreme Court of Russia refused the applicant leave to appeal, referring to the same grounds.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision to revoke her residence permit violated her right to respect for her family life, as it deprived her of any legal basis to remain in Russia and made her liable to deportation. She further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that her expulsion as a result of administrative sanctions imposed on her for several traffic offences of a minor nature was disproportionate, particularly as all her family ties were in Russia.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the decision to revoke the applicant’s residence permit constitute an interference with her right to respect for her family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-60, ECHR 2006-XII; C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 1365/07, §§ 37-50, 24 April 2008; and Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, §§ 93-129, ECHR 2002‑II (extracts))? Did the domestic authorities strike a fair balance between the grounds underlying their decision to expel the applicant and the applicant’s right to respect for her family life?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy