Communicated on 23 January 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 60067/12 Rza Nuraddin Ogly KHALILOV against Russia lodged on 13 September 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Rza Nuraddin Ogly Khalilov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Almetyevsk , Republic of Tatarstan . He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Menshchikov , a lawyer practising in Almetyevsk .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant moved from Azerbaijan to Russia in 1993. It appears that he lived in Russia on regularly extended temporary residence permits. The last residence permit authorised his stay from 17 March 2010 to 17 March 2013.

At some point the applicant met a Russian national, Ms L.Ya ., with whom in 2000 he had a son, N.Kh ., who suffers from a disability.

In 2009 the applicant purchased a flat in Almetyevsk where he resided with Ms L.Ya . and their son N.Kh .

On 14 August 2012 the applicant was arrested at his home in Almetyevsk by officers of the Republic of Tatarstan office of the Federal Service for Drug Control on suspicion of use of marijuana without a medical prescription.

On 15 August 2012 the Almetyevsk Town Court found the applicant guilty as charged and, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 6.9 concerning foreign nationals, ordered his administrative detention for ten days to be followed by expulsion from Russia (“the expulsion order”), which implied a five-year re-entry ban.

The applicant appealed against this decision stating that his expulsion would be a disproportionate measure in view of his family life in Russia with Ms L.Ya and the need to take care of his son N.Kh .

On 4 September 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld the expulsion order. It did not examine the applicant ’ s complaint concerning its adverse effect on his family life, having noted that expulsion was a compulsory element of the punishment for the administrative violation committed by the applicant.

From the documents submitted it is unclear whether the applicant has been expelled from Russia and if so, when and under what circumstances.

B. Relevant domestic law

For a summary of the relevant domestic law and the Council of Europe material see Gablishvili v. Russia (no. 39428/12 , §§ 31-37, 26 June 2014).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision on his administrative expulsion from Russia was a disproportionate measure and that it would adversely affect his family life.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been expelled or is he liable to be deported? If the expulsion has been carried out, when and under what circumstances did it take place? For how long is the applicant banned from re-entering the Russian Federation?

2. Did the decision of 15 August 2012 ordering the applicant ’ s expulsion, on the basis of the blanket regulation of Article 6.9 § 2 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences, constitute an interference with the right to respect for the applicant ’ s 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 (see Ãœner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54 - 60, ECHR 2006-XII; Slivenko v. Latvia ( dec. ) [GC], no. 48321/99, §§ 93 - 129, ECHR 2002 ‑ II (extracts); and most recently, Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, §§ 51-53, 26 June 2014)?