SAPONDZHYAN v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
1. The applicants, Ms Dzovinar Sapondzhyan (the first applicant) and Mr Albert Sapondzhyan (the second applicant), are respectively a stateless person and a Georgian national. They were born in 1955 and 1940 and live in Nadzornoye in the Kochubeyevskiy district of the Stavropol Region. They were represented before the Court by Ms O.V. Sadchikova, a lawyer practising in Stavropol. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The Georgian Government were invited to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 (a)). 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicants are a married couple with four adult sons. Prior to moving to Russia they lived in Georgia with two of their sons, Mr Grigor Sapondzhyan, who was born in 1971, and Mr Sargis Sapondzhyan, who was born in 1975. 6. In 1995 Grigor and Sargis Sapondzhyan moved to Russia. In 1997, the first applicant moved to Russia to join them, using her USSR passport. According to the applicants, on an unspecified date shortly afterwards she underwent a complex kidney operation and had to stay with her sons, who provided her with the necessary care after her surgery. Sometime in 2001 she lost her passport and became stateless. At a later date the first applicant had another kidney operation, meaning she required constant care, which was provided by her family. 7. In 1997 the second applicant arrived in Russia on a visa with his Georgian passport and joined his sons and the first applicant. He later left again and re-entered Russia in May or June 2002 on another visa. 8. In July 2003 Sargis Sapondzhyan obtained Russian nationality. According to the applicants, between 2002 and 2010 he and his commonlaw partner, a Russian national, Ms K.Yu., had four children. 9. On 18 February 2005 the second applicant was fined for a breach of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences for failing to regularise his stay in Russia. 10. According to the applicants, they live with their son Sargis and his family in the same dwelling in Nadzornoye. They are fully dependent on him and they take care of his four children. The applicants’ fourth son, Mr Akon Sapondzhyan, has also become a resident of Russia. 11. It appears that the applicants’ third son, Mr Ovanes Sapondzhyan, has continued to reside in Georgia. In September 2016 Grigor Sapondzhyan also obtained Russian nationality. 12. Between the date of their arrival in Russia and 2016 neither of the applicants applied for a temporary residence permit or took any other steps to regularise their stay in the country. 13. On 19 June 2008 the Kochubeyevskiy District Court in the Stavropol Region fined the applicants 2,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (about 50 euros (EUR)) each and ordered their administrative removal (expulsion) from Russia. The court stated that the applicants, residing 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 court further stated that both applicants had admitted they had failed to regularise their stay and noted in respect of the second applicant that he had already committed a similar violation in 2005. 14. The applicants appealed against the expulsion order to the Stavropol Regional Court. They pointed out that they were long-term migrants and that their sons and other members of their family lived in Russia. They stated that their expulsion would have an adverse effect on their family life as they had been residing with their sons, were fully dependent on them, taking care of their grandchildren, Mr Sargis Sapondzhyan’s children, and that they were not dependent on the Russian social welfare system. 15. 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. The order became final and enforceable. 16. According to the Government’s submission, the expulsion order has not been enforced to date and will not be so as under the domestic legislation it could only be carried out within two years of its entering into force. 17. According to the applicants, in September 2016, upon receipt of the Court’s correspondence concerning their application, they decided to take steps to regularise their stay in Russia. No relevant documents were enclosed. The applicants continue to reside in Russia. 18. For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Muradeli v. Russia, no. 72780/12, §§ 45-54, 9 April 2015.