Communicated on 18 March 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 32986/08 Albert Mkrtichovich SAPONDZHYAN and Dzovinar Arshalusovna SAPONDZHYAN against Russia lodged on 14 July 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Dzovinar Arshalusovna Sapondzhyan and Mr Albert Mkrtichovich Sapondzhyan , were born in 1955 and 1940 respectively and live in Stavropol. The first applicant is a stateless person and the second applicant is a Georgian national. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms Oksana Sadchikova , a lawyer practising in Stavropol.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background information

The applicants are a married couple. Prior to their move to Russia, they lived in Georgia with their two sons, Mr Grigor Sapondzhyan , who was born in 1971, and Mr Sargis Sapondzhyan , who was born in 1975.

In 1995 both of the applicants ’ sons moved to Russia. In 1997 the first applicant moved to Russia to join them, using her USSR passport. In 2000 she lost the passport and became stateless.

In 2002 the second applicant obtained Georgian nationality and moved to Russia.

In 2003 one of the sons, Mr Sargis Sapondzhyan , obtained Russian nationality. Between 2002 and 2005 he and his common-law partner, a Russian national, Ms K.Yu ., had three children.

From the documents submitted, it is evident that the applicants live with their sons and their families in the same dwelling in Nadzornoye village in the Kochubeyev district of the Stavropol Region.

2. Proceedings concerning the applicants ’ expulsion

On 19 June 2008 the Kochubeyev District Court fined the applicants 2,000 Russian r o ubles (RUB) (about 50 euros) each and ordered their administrative removal (expulsion) from Russia. In its decision, the court stated that the applicants, who had been living in Russia since 1997 and 2002 respectively, had not taken any steps to regularise their presence in the country, in breach of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences .

The applicants appealed against the order to the Stavropol Regional Court. They pointed out that they were long-term migrants, that their sons and other family members lived in Russia and that their expulsion would have an adverse effect on their family life.

On 1 July 2008 the Regional Court upheld the expulsion order on appeal. It did not examine the applicants ’ complaint concerning the alleged violation of their right to family life.

From the documents submitted it is unclear whether the expulsion order has been enforced.

B. Relevant domestic law

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Muradeli v. Russia , no. 72780/12 , §§ 45-54, 9 April 2015.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision on their expulsion from Russia violated their right to respect for family life. They argue, in particular, that in ordering such a severe measure as expulsion, the domestic courts failed to take into account that they were long-term migrants and had family in Russia.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the decision on the applicants ’ expulsion, upheld in the final instance by the Stavropol Regional Court on 1 July 2008, been enforced?

2. Has there been a violation of the respondent State ’ s positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, §§ 106-09, 3 October 2014)? In particular, did the domestic authorities strike a fair balance between the grounds underlying their decision to expel the applicants and the applicants ’ right to respect for family life?