Communicated on 23 May 2018
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 56716/16
Vusala Raif Gizi TALIBOVA
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 21 September 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Vusala Talibova, is a Russian national who was born in Azerbaijan in 1988 and is resident in Volgograd. She is represented before the Court by Mr K. Bagirov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 May 2016 the applicant was stopped at the Azerbaijani/Russian border and handed over to the Azerbaijani migration authorities whilst on her way to visit her sick mother in Russia. According to the applicant, in order to be able to leave the country she was asked to sign a document giving her consent to her removal, which she did.
On 16 May 2016 the State Migration Service (“the SMS”) sentenced the applicant to a fine of 400 Azerbaijani manats (approximately EUR 235). The SMS’s decision also stated that if the applicant refused to pay the fine, she would face removal and be banned from the territory of Azerbaijan for three years. The justification for this decision by the SMS was the applicant’s alleged non-observance of the registration procedure and her sojourn in the country without any valid documents.
On 25 May 2016 the applicant challenged that decision before the first-instance court, submitting, inter alia, that the SMS had not taken into account the fact that she was born in Azerbaijan, had married an Azerbaijani national in 2007 and had two minor children. The first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claims, referring to the document signed by her on 14 May 2016 in which she stated that she had lived in Azerbaijan without registration, did not have enough funds to pay the fine, and asked the relevant authorities to assist her removal.
By a decision of 1 August 2016 the appellate court upheld the first‑instance court’s judgment.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to address her arguments and deliver a reasoned judgment.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that excluding her from the territory of Azerbaijan for a period of three years constitutes a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her family life.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her 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 the terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have effective domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 8 at her disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy