Communicated on 8 April 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 75947/14 Bakhodur Radzhabovich RASULOV against Russia lodged on 21 November 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Bakhodur Radzhabovich Rasulov , is a national of Tajikistan, who was born in 1984 and lives in the Leningrad Region in Russia.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant lives in Russia with his wife and four daughters, all of them Tajik nationals, in the flat owned by his sister, a Russian national. He claims having to links with Tajikistan since the death of his parents in 2004.

On 26 October 2012 the applicant obtained a residence permit valid until 7 June 2014.

On 4 April 2014 the applicant came to the local office of the Federal Migration Service. An official told him that he breached section 8 § 6 of the Aliens Legal Status Act by failing to confirm his residence in Russia after the first year of validity of his residence permit. This constituted an administrative offence under Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences and the matter would be referred to a court.

On the same day the Volosovskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region found the applicant guilty of a breach of the regulations on migration under Article 18.8 and characterised that breach under part 3 of this provision, since it was committed in the Leningrad Region. The court fined the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles and issued an expulsion order against him. The applicant was required to leave Russia at his own expense.

The applicant lodged an appeal. Relying in particular on Article 8 of the Convention, he pointed out that his entire family was in Russia, that the time-limit for filing the confirmation could have been extended by up to six months, and that he was prepared to pay a fine but asked the court to set aside the expulsion order.

On 15 April 2014 the Leningrad Regional Court rejected the appeal, finding that the law had been correctly applied in the applicant ’ s case. It noted that “ a temporary stay of [the applicant ’ s] family members , who are Tajik nationals, in Russia cannot prevent Russian laws from being enforced”.

On 2 June 2014 a deputy president of the Leningrad Regional Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. It noted that the residence permits of the applicant ’ s wife and daughters would expired on 7 July 2014.

On 1 September 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected, in a summary fashion, the applicant ’ s final appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Aliens Legal Status Act (Law no. 115-FZ of 25 July 2002, as amended on 23 July 2013) requires an alien who is resident in Russia on the basis of a permanent residence permit to confirm his residence annually to the local migration authorities (section 8 § 6).

Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences provides as follows:

“1. An infringement by a foreign national or a stateless person of the procedure for entry to the Russian Federation or the regulations on stay or residence in the Russian Federation, including ... a breach of the regulations on migration, travel or choice of permanent or temporary residence ... shall be punishable by an administrative fine ... and by possible administrative removal from the Russian Federation.

1.1. A breach of the regulations on stay or residence in the Russian Federation committed by a foreign national or a stateless person who has no document confirming the right to reside or stay in the Russian Federation ... shall be punishable by an administrative fine of between RUB 2,000 and 5,000 and by administrative removal from the Russian Federation.

...

3. The offences described in paragraphs 1, 1.1 ... above, if committed in the federal-level cities of Moscow and St Petersburg or in the Moscow or Leningrad Regions, shall be punishable by an administrative fine of between RUB 5,000 and 7,000 and by administrative removal from the Russian Federation.”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the expulsion order amounted to disproportionate interference with his family life.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Were the proceedings in which the applicant ’ s expulsion from Russia was ordered compatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention ? In particular, did the provision under with the applicant was charged (Article 18.8 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offence) allow the domestic courts to assess the proportionality of the interference and to waive, if necessary, the application of the expulsion measure (see Gablishvili v. Russia , no. 39428/12 , §§ 47, 51-53 and 60, 26 June 2014)? The Government are requested to submit the relevant case-law of the Russian courts in the form of full judgments (as opposed to partial citations or extracts).