Communicated on 23 October 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 48453/16
Artur Meruzhanovich SARGSYAN
against Russia
lodged on 3 August 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Artur Meruzhanovich Sargsyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Pereyaslovskaya, in the Krasnodar Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Korzhov, a human-rights defender from Krasnodar.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case
1. Background information
In 2007 the applicant arrived in Russia and in 2008 he started cohabiting with A.P. It is unclear on what basis he was residing in the country. From the documents submitted, it appears that he regularly left and re-entered Russia. On 30 November 2008 the couple had a daughter, M.P. The applicant was not registered as her father on her birth certificate.
On an unspecified date in January 2014 the applicant officially registered his stay in Russia in Pereyaslovskaya, in the Brukhovetskiy district of the Krasnodar Region. On 15 January 2014 he officially started working as an electrician for a local company. His employment contract was to last until 26 December 2014.
On 24 October 2014 the applicant registered his marriage with A.P.
The applicant’s submissions indicate that his stay in Russia was duly authorised by the Brukhovetskiy district department of the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”), and that the authorities were fully aware of his continued presence in Russia. His stay was officially registered by them in Pereyaslovskaya as going from 14 March to 9 June 2014, from 9 June to 27 August 2014, from 27 August to 21 November 2014, and from 21 November to 9 December 2014, a consecutive period of eight months and twenty-six days.
2. The applicant’s detention for violating the immigration regulations
On 9 December 2014 the applicant and A.P. went to the FMS to apply for a temporary residence permit. There, he was detained for a violation of Article 18.8 § 1 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”), overstaying the 90-day time-limit for residence in Russia within a period of 180 days.
3. Administrative proceedings against the applicant and his appeals against the removal order
(a) The first set of proceedings
On 9 December 2014 the applicant was taken to the Brukhovetskiy District Court, which found him guilty of a violation of Article 18.8 § 1 of the CAO, overstaying the 90-day time-limit for residence in Russia. The court fined him 2,000 Russian roubles (RUB – approximately 40 euros (EUR)) and ordered his administrative removal for residing in the country without proper authorisation. The text of the decision did not contain any references to or information about the applicant’s family situation. The decision ordered the applicant’s detention pending removal in a special detention centre for foreigners and stateless persons in Sochi, in the Krasnodar Region. After his removal from Russia, the applicant would be banned from re-entering the country for five years.
The applicant appealed against the above removal decision to the Krasnodar Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).
On 25 December 2014 the Regional Court rejected the appeal and upheld the decision to remove the applicant. In its ruling, the court confirmed that the applicant’s residence in Russia from 14 March to 9 December 2014 had been officially registered by the FMS, but did not comment on the immigration authorities’ actions concerning their tolerance for his staying in the country in violation of the prescribed period of 90 days out of 180 days. The court did not examine a complaint by the applicant concerning the adverse effect of the removal on his family life.
The applicant further appealed against the removal decision to the Regional Court, which on 30 January 2015 upheld the removal order. As for a complaint by the applicant under Article 8 of the Convention, the court did not examine the effect of the removal on the applicant’s family life.
The applicant appealed against the above decision to the Administrative Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”).
On 23 June 2015 the Supreme Court examined the appeal, overruled the removal order, and forwarded the case to the Regional Court for fresh examination. The court stated, in particular, that the applicant had officially been employed in Russia between 15 January and 26 December 2014. In accordance with Article 97 § 5 of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union, the stay of a foreign national was defined by the length of his or her employment contract. On 10 October 2014 Armenia had signed the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union. In accordance with Article 1.7 § 2 of the CAO, the regulations making administrative punishment for this violation less serious or abolishing such punishment had a retroactive effect. Therefore, given that the applicant had been officially employed and that the lower courts had disregarded that fact, along with the retroactive effect of the regulations, the applicant’s case should be examined afresh. The court did not examine the applicant’s complaint concerning the adverse effect of the removal on his family life.
(b) The second set of proceedings
On 22 July 2015 the Regional Court examined the applicant’s case anew and upheld the initial removal order. In particular, its decision stated that the applicant had not provided documents confirming his employment in Russia. As for his complaint concerning the adverse effect of the removal on his family life, it stated:
“... the case file material does not contain information [showing] that A. Sargsyan lives with his wife and adopted daughter and plays a part in her upbringing and financial support, or any other information showing a family and the presence of close family ties...
While the record of the administrative violation [of 9 December 2014] was being drawn up, and then during the examination of his case by the first-instance and appellate courts, A. Sargsyan did not claim that he was officially employed. According to record no. 629112 of the administrative violation [of 9 December 2014] and Mr Sargsyan’s explanation, he was neither employed nor had children.”
On 20 October 2015 the applicant appealed against the above decision to the Supreme Court. In his appeal, he stated that, prior to the examination on 22 July 2015, he had provided the necessary documents confirming his employment, immigration status and family life to the Regional Court. In particular, he stressed that the Regional Court had ignored a copy of his marriage certificate, certificate no. 520983 of 24 October 2014, as well as a document showing that he had a daughter. The applicant stressed that on 9 December 2014 he had gone to the FMS voluntarily, as he had wanted to apply for a residence permit. At that point, he had been detained, taken to court, and his removal had been ordered without any regard for his family life.
On 15 February 2016 the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal and upheld the removal decision. The court stated, in particular, that the applicant’s alleged certificate of employment for the period between 1 March and 30 December 2014 was not valid proof of employment. As for the complaint concerning the adverse effect of the removal on his family life, the court stated that the record regarding the applicant’s detention on 9 December 2014 did not contain information about his children, and that he had failed to provide evidence proving that he “actually resided with his wife and children, that they ran a household together, and that he exercised parental responsibilities”.
Subsequent appeals by the applicant by way of supervisory review were to no avail.
From the documents submitted, it is unclear whether the applicant has been removed from Russia and, if so, 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).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that, in ordering his administrative removal, the domestic courts failed to properly examine his family life in Russia and the fact that the removal therefore violated his right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the removal order of 9 December 2014 constitute an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his 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 applicant’s deportation order and other documents pertaining to his removal from Russia.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy