Communicated on 8 January 2021 Published on 25 January 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 21754/19 Viktor Viktorovich KNYSHOV against Russia lodged on 8 April 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Viktor Viktorovich Knyshov , is a stateless person, who was born in 1986 and lives in Samorodovka , Russia. He is represented before the Court by Ms Z. Biryukova, a lawyer practising in Saratov.

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

The applicant, who was born in 1986, is a stateless person who arrived in Russia from Kazakhstan in 1992. It is unclear on what legal basis he resided in Russia. According to the applicant, his late parents were Russian nationals, just like his brother who resides in Russia. Between 1992 and 2004 the applicant studied at school and then at a technical college in Russia.

In January 2008 the applicant was convicted for aggravated robbery and murder and sentenced to twelve years of high security prison. In 2011 his sentenced was decreased to eleven years and five months.

On 27 May 2015 the Ministry of Justice declared the applicant ’ s presence in Russia undesirable until February 2027 (the exclusion order), that is until his criminal record would be expunged.

On 2 April 2018 the applicant was released early, upon serving ten years of his sentence.

On 29 May 2018 the applicant appealed against the exclusion order to the Kirovskiy District Court in Saratov. He stated that he had lived all his life in Russia, having moved there at the age of six, that he was ethnically Russian and that he had a civil partner Ms S.K. with whom he had a son who had been born in 2014. He stated that he had one brother who also lived in Russia, and he had lost any connections with Kazakhstan. The applicant stressed that the exclusion order had been issued only on the basis of his criminal conviction without any regard to either his stateless status or the impossibility for him to regularise it in view of the exclusion order. Finally, he stated that he had been released from prison early, which showed that he was not a danger to the society.

On 19 July 2018 the court rejected his appeal and upheld the exclusion order. The court stated that the necessary procedure for taking such a decision had been complied with, and that the serious nature of the crime the applicant had committed had been sufficient for his expulsion. As for the applicant ’ s arguments concerning his family life and his stateless status, the court dismissed them in a summary fashion stating as follows:

“...the interests of population of the Russian Federation, whose security cannot depend on whether the stateless person with non-expunged criminal record has family ties in the Russian Federation, lacks desire to leave the country or whether there is no factual possibility [for him] to leave the Russian Federation ...”

On 1 November 2018 the Saratov Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal. The outcome of further cassation appeal against the exclusion order is unknown.

According to the applicant, due to the lack of a destination for his expulsion, he cannot be expelled from Russia, but at the same time due to the exclusion order against him, he cannot legalise his status in the country. Therefore, he is not able to work to earn a living and he cannot have recourse to basic public services, such as medical care. Moreover, this situation makes him fully dependent on his brother, with whom he resides, and who provides him with the financial means to subsist.

For the relevant domestic law and practice see Gablishvili v. Russia (no. 39428/12, §§ 33-36, 26 June 2014), and Muradeli v. Russia (no. 72780/12, §§ 45-54, 9 April 2015).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the exclusion order issued against him following his criminal conviction is unlawful and arbitrary as it did not take into account his stateless status in Russia and his inability to regularise it, and that the domestic courts failed to examine those issues .

Q UESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant lodge cassation appeal against the exclusion order issued against him? If so, what is the outcome of those proceedings? The applicant is requested to provide copies of the relevant documents.

2. Did the exclusion order 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)?

- What was the scope of review of the domestic courts who examined the applicant ’ s appeal against the exclusion order? Did the courts make a balancing exercise between the need to maintain public order and the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private and family life? In particular, did the courts examine the applicant ’ s allegations of being stateless and his inability to regularise his immigration status?

3. The Government are invited to inform the Court whether any remedial measures have been taken in respect of the applicant in order to regularise his situation from the standpoint of Russian immigration law, as well as to provide examples of such measures successfully taken in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis , Kim v. Russia , no. 44260/13 , §§ 73-74, 17 July 2014) .