Communicated on 30 August 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 13385/16
Sos Sogomonovich SHAPOVALOV
against Russia
lodged on 28 February 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sos Sogomonovich Shapovalov (Daniyelyan), is a Armenian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Vanadzor, Armenia.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant, Mr Daniyelyan, arrived in Russia in 2008 to join close relatives who, according to him, had moved from Armenia to Russia. He had no family left in Armenia.
At some point in 2008 he started living with Ms E.Sh., a Russian citizen, in the Belovskiy District in Kursk Region. It is unclear whether the applicant was employed in Russia and what was the basis for his stay in the country.
From the documents submitted to the Court it appears that on 9 March 2011 and then on 7 June 2012 the applicant was fined for failing to comply with immigration regulations.
On 28 January 2015 the Belovskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s administrative removal from Russia for a violation of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences for residing in Russia without proper authorisation. In addition, the court fined him 2,000 Russian roubles. The court did not examine the applicant’s submission that he had a family life in Russia, stating that his marriage to Ms E.Sh. had not been officially registered and therefore could not be taken into account.
On 3 June 2015 the applicant and Ms E.Sh. officially registered their marriage in Vanadzor, Armenia. The applicant took his wife’s surname and became Mr Shapovalov.
On 29 October 2015 the Kursk Regional Court upheld the administrative removal on appeal. It stated, in particular, that the applicant had concluded the marriage with Ms E.Sh. only after the issuance of the decision to remove him and that therefore it did not prove that he had a family life in Russia.
On 24 December 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed a further appeal by the applicant against his removal. It stated, in particular, that the applicant had lived in Russia without proper authorisation, that he had not taken any steps to regularise his status during the entire period he was in Russia and that there had been no evidence of his having a family life at the time of the decision on his administrative removal.
From the documents submitted to the Court it appears that on an unspecified date in 2015 the applicant was deported from Russia to Armenia. He stated that the removal prevents him from re-entering Russia due to a re-entry ban.
B. Relevant domestic law
For the relevant domestic law and practice see Gablishvili v. Russia (no. 39428/12, §§ 33-37, 26 June 2014), and Muradeli v. Russia (no. 72780/12, §§ 45-55, 9 April 2015).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that the decision ordering his administrative removal was taken without an examination of his family life in Russia and that it therefore violated his right to respect for his family life under Article 8 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the removal order of 28 January 2015 constitute an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and 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 furnish a copy of the applicant’s deportation order and other documents on his removal from Russia.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy