THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 56738/19
Sanur Akhmadi Kyzy SULTANOVA and Magomed Sultanovich SULTANOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 56738/19) against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 October 2019 by Azerbaijani and Russian nationals, Ms Sanur Akhmadi Kyzy Sultanova and Mr Magomed Sultanovich Sultanov, who were born in 1980 and 1972 respectively and live in Kultayevo (“the applicants”) who were represented by Mr B.I. Ponosov, residing in Ocher;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”), initially represented by Mr A. Fedorov, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by his successor in this office, Mr M. Vinogradov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. Shortly after their marriage in Azerbaijan, in July 2001 the applicants moved to Russia. In 2002 and 2004 they had two sons, both of whom are Russian nationals.
2. On 9 October 2019 the Perm District Court in Perm (the District Court) found the first applicant guilty of a breach of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences (failure to comply with immigration regulations). It fined her 3,000 Russian roubles (about 40 euros) and ordered her administrative removal from Russia with the five-year re-entry ban (exclusion order).
3. The applicants appealed against the exclusion order asking for it to be overruled as it represented a disproportionate sanction and that the first applicant’s exclusion from Russia for five years would disrupt their family life. On 23 October 2019 the Perm Regional Court rejected the appeal and upheld the order referring, amongst other things, to the applicant’s failure to take steps to regularise her immigration status. The exclusion order became final and enforceable.
4. On 26 February 2020 the Seventh Cassation Court in Chelyabinsk (the Cassation Court) examined the applicants’ cassation appeal and overruled the exclusion order. It considered the first applicant’s long-term residence in Russia along with her family ties with Russian nationals and found that the exclusion would be a disproportionate punishment.
5. On 18 June 2020 the first applicant received a temporary residence permit. She currently resides with her family in Russia.
6. The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision to remove the first applicant from Russia and the subsequent five‑year re-entry ban was a disproportionate sanction which adversely effected their family life.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
7. The Government submitted that the application should be dismissed as the first applicant’s exclusion from Russia had been overruled and she received the residence permit.
8. The Court observes that when initially deciding on the first applicant’s exclusion, the domestic courts failed to balance the interests at stake and examine proportionality of the sanction to the violation committed. However, in the subsequent proceedings, the Cassation Court demonstrated thorough approach and examined the first applicant’s submission concerning the adverse effect of the exclusion on her family life. Upon the detailed assessment of the relevant facts they concluded that impugned measure would be a disproportionate punishment and overruled it. Furthermore, the authorities took no steps towards the first applicant’s exclusion during the period between October 2019 and June 2020, when she was granted the residence permit, and she continues to reside in Russia unimpeded (for a similar situation, see Namazov and Alekseyeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 68921/13, 19 September 2018, and Agadzhanyan v. Russia [Committee], no. 25625/14, 19 May 2020).
9. In view of the above, and assuming that the first applicant has not lost her victim status, the Court concludes that the applicants’ complaint under Article 8 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded. It must therefore be dismissed under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 2 June 2022.
Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
Deputy Registrar President