Communicated on 5 April 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 19208/11 Natella I SAYEVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 10 March 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Natella Isayeva , is a Georgian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Baku. She is represented before the Court by Mr J. Hasanov , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

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

The applicant was born in Georgia and moved to Azerbaijan together with her family in 1989. She has been living in Azerbaijan since then.

The applicant ’ s father and son are Azerbaijani nationals. She also applied to the relevant authorities to obtain the citizenship, but without success. Following this, she returned to Georgia and obtained a passport from there. Since then, the applicant has been registered as a foreigner in Azerbaijan. According to the law in force at the material time, the applicant was allowed to stay in Azerbaijan for no more than 90 days and then had to leave the country and re-enter the territory.

Following the introduction of a new system, the applicant asked the State Migration Service (“the SMS”) to provide her with a temporary residence permit.

In a letter dated 12 October 2009 the SMS refused to issue a temporary residence permit, stating that she did not have the right to reside in Azerbaijan and that her stay could be no more than 90 days, after which she had to leave the country.

The applicant applied to the first-instance court, claiming that the SMS ’ s refusal was unlawful and unjustified.

On 22 January 2010 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim, finding that the applicant had failed to present any evidence substantiating her claims. The applicant appealed against that decision, claiming that the court had failed to deliver a reasoned judgment.

On 22 April 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the same grounds.

By a final decision of 14 September 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ’ judgments.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that by refusing to issue her with a temporary residence permit the State authorities have interfered with her right to respect for private and family life.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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?