Communicated on 23 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 19359/16 Gurgen Vovayevich KHACHATRYAN against Russia lodged on 16 March 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Gurgen Vovayevich Khachatryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1986 and lives in Novokubansk , Krasnodar Region . He is represented before the Court by Mr Oleg Zhurda , a lawyer practising in Novokubansk .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background information

On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant moved from Armenia to Russia to join his parents, Russian nationals, who were living in the Orenburg Region. It is unclear on what basis the applicant resided in Russia after his arrival.

At some point after he arrived in Russia in 2010, the applicant lost his Armenian passport.

In 2010 the applicant and his parents moved to Novorossiysk in the Krasnodar Region. During the move, the applicant lost his passport and the documents he had prepared to apply for Russian citizenship.

In 2010 the applicant started living as a family with Ms A.D., a Russian national. On 1 March 2011 the couple concluded a marriage in a religious ceremony. According to the applicant, he could not conclude an official marriage owing to the loss of his passport.

On 30 December 2011 the applicant and Ms A.D. had a daughter, I.Kh , and on 3 November 2013 a son, V.Kh .

In 2012 the applicant ’ s father died and his disabled mother became fully dependent on him.

On 18 February 2015 the applicant and Ms A.D. registered their marriage officially.

On an unspecified date at the beginning of 2015, after he had been expelled to Armenia (see below), the applicant obtained a new passport there.

2. Proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s administrative removal

On 16 August 2014 the applicant was asked to attend the Department of the Federal Migration Service in Novorossiysk ( Управлении Федеральной миграционной службы ( ФМС ) ) (“the FMS”), where it was established that he had neither an Armenian passport nor a Russian visa.

On 18 August 2014 the Primorskiy District Court ( hereinafter “the District Court”) in Novorossiysk ordered the applicant ’ s administrative removal from Russia for a breach of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences ( hereinafter “the CAO”) for residing in Russia without proper authorisation . The court fined the applicant 2,000 Russian roubles and ordered his administrative removal and a five-year re-entry ban. The text of the decision did not contain any references to or information about the applicant ’ s family situation. After the court ’ s decision the applicant was detained in a special detention centre for foreigners and stateless persons.

From the documents submitted to the Court it appears that the removal order became final on 29 August 2014.

Sometime between August 2014 and March 2015 the applicant was expelled from Russia to Armenia.

On an unspecified date between December 2014 and March 2015 the applicant appealed through his representative against the removal order to the Krasnodar Regional Court ( hereinafter “the Regional Court”) by supervisory review. In his appeal he referred to his family life in Russia with Ms A.D. and their two children as well as the need to support his mother. He stressed that his removal and the re-entry ban would disrupt his family life. He also pointed out that he had no record of criminal or administrative offences and that he had been informed of the hearing of 18 August 2014 less than an hour before it had begun. He had therefore been unable to hire a lawyer to represent him before the District Court. With his appeal the applicant enclosed, amongst other things, a copy of his Armenian passport, a copy of his marriage certificate, copies of his children ’ s birth certificates and copies of his parents ’ papers.

On 27 April 2015 the Regional Court examined the appeal and upheld the removal order. The court stated that the order had been issued duly as the applicant had failed to comply with the relevant regulations. The court disregarded the applicant ’ s submission of an alleged violation of his right to respect for his family life and stated:

“... the arguments of [the applicant ’ s] representative that the applicant ... had family in the Russian Federation are not substantiated by the case as the applicant failed to request defence counsel during the examination of his case [by the District Court].”

The applicant also appealed against the removal order to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ( hereinafter “the Supreme Court”).

On 10 September 2015 the Supreme Court examined the applicant ’ s complaint on the merits and upheld the order. It stated in general terms that the lower courts ’ findings had been “substantiated by relevant evidence” and that the applicant ’ s punishment for the commission of the administrative offence had been “fully reasoned and ... had been in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention”. The court ’ s decision was sent to the applicant on 21 September 2015.

B. Relevant domestic law

For the relevant domestic law and practice see Muradeli v. Russia (no. 72780/12, §§ 45-55, 9 April 2015).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the decision ordering his administrative removal was taken without any examination of his family life in Russia and that it therefore violated his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Noting that the decision on the applicant ’ s removal became final on 29 August 2014 while the present application was lodged on 16 March 2016, has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Should the decision of 10 September 2015 be taken into consideration in that respect (see for comparison Martynets v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009; Kovaleva and Others v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 6025/09, 25 June 2009; Denis ov v. Russia , ( dec. ), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; and AO “ Uralmash ” v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 13338/03, 10 April 2003)?

2. Did the removal order of 18 August 2014 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)?