THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 60186/09 Ley SHI against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 January 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller, President, Pere Pastor Vilanova , Alena Poláčková , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 October 2009,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Ley Shi, is a Chinese national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Ussuriysk . He is not legally represented before the Court.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant arrived in Russia in 1994. In November 1999 he married a Russian national Ms A.M. with whom he had two children, who were born in 2002 and 2007. The applicant ’ s family lives in Russia.

On 19 October 2004 the applicant received a five-year residence permit. On an unspecified date between January and June 2008, he decided to apply for the Russian citizenship.

On 29 July 2008 the Primorskiy Regional Department of the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS department”) issued decision no. 102/08 revoking the applicant ’ s residence permit on the grounds that his application for the Russian citizenship had not been approved by the Federal Security Service (the FSB). According to the latter, the applicant posed a threat to the national security.

The applicant challenged the decision in two levels of jurisdiction. The final decision upholding the revocation of the applicant ’ s residence permit was taken by the Primorskiy Regional Court on 15 April 2009. In its decision the Regional Court stated that it did not have the competence to assess issues which were within the FSB ’ s discretionary power. The court left without examination the issue whether the revocation of the residence permit amounted to an interference with the applicant ’ s family life.

The applicant ’ s subsequent appeals by way of supervisory review were to no avail.

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the revocation of his residence permit violated his right to respect for family life. In the absence of a residence permit he is obliged to leave Russia where his wife and children lawfully reside. He argues that he does not present any security risk and the authorities ’ findings to the contrary were unsubstantiated. His procedural rights were violated because the decision to revoke his residence permit was taken on the basis of classified materials.

On 22 September 2015 t he applicant ’ s complaint were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 20 April 2016 the observations were forwarded to the applicant by registered post and he was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letter dated 20 June 2016, also sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 18 May 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 9 July 2016. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;

...

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 February 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Helen Keller              Deputy Registrar President