Communicated on 19 December 2013

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 78035/13 Marik Kiyamovich AVYASOV against Russia lodged on 28 November 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Marik Kiyamovich Avyasov , was born in 1965 and lives in Novokuybyshevsk . His current nationality is a matter of controversy: according to the applicant, he relinquished his Uzbekistani nationality in 2012, without acquiring any other nationality; however, he continues to use his Uzbekistani passport valid through 2015.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant, originally an Uzbekistani national, arrived to Russia in 2001. In 2008, he married a Russian national U.

In 2012, the applicant obtained a Russian residence permit with a view to subsequently applying for Russian nationality.

In the same year, while undergoing in-patient treatment for renal insufficiency, the applicant discovered his HIV-positive status. He was diagnosed with terminal kidney disease and needs hemodialysis four times a week.

On 19 November 2012 the Consumer Protection Authority of the Samara Region issued a decision to declare the applicant ’ s presence in Russia undesirable on account of his HIV-positive status. On 4 December 2012 the Service notified the decision to the applicant and instructed him to leave Russia by 24 November 2012 ( sic ) or else to face deportation.

On 20 December 2012 the Samara division of the Federal Migration Service annulled the applicant ’ s residence permit.

The applicant challenged the decisions by the Consumer Protection Authority and by the Federal Migration Service in court. He pointed out in particular that he had a family life with a Russian national and that he was receiving complicated treatment and was unable to travel to Uzbekistan on account of his state of health.

By judgment of 18 April 2013, the Novokuybyshevsk Town Court of the Samara Region dismissed the applicant ’ s claim. It held that the decisions had been lawfully issued by the competent authorities in accordance with the applicable legal provisions. It also noted that there was no evidence of “exceptional and meritorious considerations” warranting a reversal of the decisions because the applicant and his spouse could move to Uzbekistan.

On 14 June 2013 the Samara Regional Court dismissed the appeal against the Town Court ’ s judgment, finding in particular as follows:

“The argument in Mr Avyasov ’ s statement of appeal to the effect that he is married to a Russian national [U.] is not a ground for quashing the judgment of the first-instance court because the Consumer Protection Authority took into account the balance of interests of a foreign national and a majority of the Russian population and rightfully protected the interests of the majority of the State population by way of issuing the decision on the undesirability of [Mr Avyasov ’ s ] presence ...

Besides, a foreign national has no right to comprehensive free medical cover in the territory of the Russian Federation whereas he may obtain adequate medical assistance in his own State ...”

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice, see Kiyutin v. Russia , no. 2700/10, §§ 16-27, ECHR 2011.

For additional legal provisions, relevant to the present case, see Novruk and Others v. Russia , no s . 31039/11 , 48511/11, 76810/12 and 14618/13 .

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that he was a victim of discrimination on account of his health status as regards the annulment of his residence permit and the pronouncement of his presence in Russia undesirable.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the principles established in the Court ’ s judgment concerning the refusal of a residence permit to an applicant on account of his health status (see Kiyutin v. Russia , no. 2700/10, §§ 53-74, ECHR 2011 ), was there a violation of the applicant ’ s right to be protected against discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 , on account of the revocation of his residence permit and the pronouncement of his presence in Russia undesirable ?