CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 1 December 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 25625/14 Karlen AGADZHANYAN against Russia lodged on 19 March 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Karlen Agadzhanyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Arsk, Tatarstan in Russia. He is represented before the Court by Mr Boris Rybak, an advocate practising in Kazan, also in Russia. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background information and refusal to issue the applicant with a residence permit The applicant has been living in Russia since 1986. He is married to a Russian citizen with whom he has a child, who was born in 2008. He has been living in Russia on the basis of a series of regularly extended temporary residence permits. On 1 September 2005 and 11 February 2011 the applicant was found guilty of two administrative offences relating to breaching conditions of residence in Russia, and was given administrative fines. On an unspecified date in 2013 the applicant applied to extend his residence in Russia, having indicated in the relevant field of the appropriate application form that he had not been found guilty of an administrative offence relating to breaching conditions of residence in Russia.   On 1 July 2013 (in the application form lodged with the Court the date was also referred to as 22 July 2013) the Tatarstan Department of the Federal Migration Service ( Управление Федеральной миграционной службы России по Республике Татарстан , hereafter “the FMS”) refused to issue the applicant with a residence permit on the grounds that he had provided incorrect information, having not specified the facts of his administrative convictions in 2005 and 2011 in the application form to extend his residence. The FMS referred to section 9(1)(4) of the Federal Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners in the Russian Federation (hereafter “the Legal Status of Foreigners Act”), which provides that no resident permit shall be issued to a foreigner who has submitted forged documents or knowingly provided false information about him or herself. 2.     Appeal against the refusal to issue the applicant with a residence permit On an unspecified date in 2013 the applicant complained before the Vakhitovskiy District Court in Kazan ( Вахитовский районный суд города Казани , hereafter “the District Court”), stating that he had been living in Russia since 1986 and had a stable job and a family – a wife and child. He further stated that the refusal to issue him with a residence permit had contravened certain provisions of the domestic law which, in his opinion, absolved him of the responsibility to provide the FMS with information about his previous administrative convictions. On 27 August 2013 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint, finding that, under the domestic legislation, he was obliged to provide the FMS with information about his previous administrative convictions in Russia, however he had failed to provide such information for no valid reason. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan (hereafter “the Regional Court”), referring to the same legal arguments as those submitted before the District Court. On 9 December 2013 the Regional Court rejected the complaint, stating that the District Court had duly examined the necessary legal basis for the measure in issue, and that its decision had been lawful and reasonable. It is unclear whether the applicant currently resides in Russia and if so, on what basis. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the refusal to issue him with a residence permit violated his right to respect for his family life, as it deprived him of a legal basis to remain in Russia. He further complains under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention that the contested decision was disproportionate in the light of his family situation, and that the domestic courts failed to take into account the fact that his closest family members – his wife and child – lived in Russia.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     What was the scope of the reviews carried out by the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan in which the applicant’s appeals against the contested decision were examined? Were the courts under an obligation to examine the applicant’s family ties to Russia? 2.     Did the refusal to issue the applicant with a residence permit in Russia constitute an interference with his right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Üner   v.   the   Netherlands [GC], no.   46410/99, §§   54-60, ECHR   2006-...; C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria , no.   1365/07, §§ 37-50, 24   April 2008; and Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no.   48321/99, §§ 93-129, ECHR 2002 ‑ II (extracts))? Did the domestic authorities strike a fair balance between the grounds underlying the contested decision and the applicant’s right to respect for his family life? 3.     In respect of the alleged violation of Article   8 of the Convention, did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention (see De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no.   22689/07, § 83, ECHR 2012)?