Communicated on 1 June 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 78228/14 Samid Ayaddin Ogly ALIYEV against Ukraine lodged on 10 December 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Samid Ayaddin Ogly Aliyev , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1987 and lives in Kryvyy Rih , Ukraine . He is represented before the Court by Mr S.G. Yakymenko , a lawyer practising in Kryvyy Rih .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 2008 the applicant with his parents and a brother moved from Azerbaijan to Ukraine .

On 28 April 2008 the Ukrainian authorities granted the applicant ’ s mother , an Azeri national, a Ukrainian citizenship.

On 2 July 2009 the applicant obtained a permanent residence permit as a family member of the Ukrainian citizen (his mother).

On 22 July 2009 the applicant ’ s parents bought a house in Kryvyy Rih .

On 29 June 2010 the authorities quashed their decision of 28 April 2008 finding that the applicant ’ s m other had not given up her Azerbaijani citizenship, which was a requirement to fulfil within a year.

O n 23 July and 2 August 2010 the authorities revoked the applicant ’ s residence permit for the reason that it had been issued on the basis of documents which had no longer been valid and ordered the applicant ’ s expulsion from Ukraine with a five years ’ ban for re-entry.

On 29 July 2011 the applicant ’ s daughter was born, the daughter and the mother, the applicant ’ s life companion, having Ukrainian citizenship.

The applicant challenged the decisions of 23 July and 2 August 2010 before the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administrative Court which on 17 December 2012 suspended the decision on the applicant ’ s expulsion for the period of determination of the case and adoption of judgment.

On 17 April 2013 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claims finding that the impugned decisions were lawful. The court also noted that in 2013 the applicant ’ s right to reside in Ukraine had been extended for a certain period in view of the parental ties between him and his child possessing Ukrainian citizenship; those facts, however, did not affect the lawfulness of the decisions on the applicant ’ s expulsion and revocation of his permanent residence permit.

On 4 February and 30 October 2014 , respectively, the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal and the Higher Administrative Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Legal Status of Foreigners and Stateless Persons Act of 4 February 1994 (in force until 25 December 2011)

Section 32 of the Act provide d :

“ ...

Apart from the situations specified in the first part of this section , foreigners and stateless persons may be expelled from Ukraine by a decision of the police, State border guard (relating to persons detained within controlled border areas, during or after an illegal crossing of the border of Ukraine) or the Security Service of Ukraine , with the notification within twenty-four hours of the prosecutor about the reasons for that decision, if the actions of the foreigners and stateless persons have grossly violated the law on the status of foreigners and stateless persons, or are contrary to the interests of Ukraine ’ s security or public order, or when necessary for public health considerations or for the protection of the rights and lawful interests of the citizens of Ukraine.

...

The police or the State border guard may arrest foreigners or stateless persons and compulsorily expel them from Ukraine only on the basis of an administrative court decision. ...”

The Legal Status of Foreigners and Stateless Persons Act of 4 February 1994 (in force since 26 December 2011)

Section 30 of the Act provides that the compulsory expulsion of foreigners and stateless persons may be conducted only on the basis of an administrative court decision.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the decisions of Ukrainian administrative authorities and the courts concerning his expulsion from Ukraine and revocation of his residence permit were not compatible with requirements of Article 8 of the Convention and did not ensure respect for his family life.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his 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?