Family separation due to expulsion disrupts the protection of family life
Kamenov v. Russia 7-3-2017 (no. 17570/15)
Family life. Deportation. The applicant is a Kazakhstan national and the case concerned his deportation from Russia despite the fact that he had married a Russian national with whom he had two children and lived in Slantseviy Rudnik. The applicant and had received a three-year residence permit, but during the time periode the permit was in effect and while returning from Kazakhstan, he was not allowed to enter in Russia. He argued that the ban on entry had a negative effect on his family life. He found objections in the national courts and then appealed to the ECtHR. The Court decided that the ban imposed on him had violated the right to respect for his family life.
The applicant, Murat Kamenov, is a Kazakh national who was born in 1968 and lives in Zhangala, Kazakhstan. The case concerned his exclusion from Russia.
In 2000 Mr Kamenov moved from Kazakhstan to Russia, where he married a Russian citizen. The couple had two daughters, and settled in Slantseviy Rudnik in the Saratov Region. Mr Kamenov lived in Russia under regularly extended temporary residence permits. In August 2013 the Department of the Federal Migration Service granted him a three-year residence permit, which was valid until August 2016.
However, upon returning from a visit to Kazakhstan in April 2014, Mr Kamenov was denied re-entry into Russia. He was informed that he was banned from re-entering Russia until January 2030, on the basis of a report from the Federal Security Service. Mr Kamenov lodged an appeal against the exclusion order, complaining that the measure had adversely affected his family life. The case was examined by the Saratov Regional Court. According to the court it was able to “review” the FSS report which served as the basis for the exclusion.
However, neither Mr Kamenov nor his representative were allowed to see the report, and they were refused information about why the exclusion had been put in place. When asked about the basis for the ban, the FSS’s representatives replied that the reasons could not be disclosed in the interests of State security, and that the information was a state secret. The Regional Court upheld Mr Kamenov’s exclusion, citing the threat to national security, and stating that the public interest prevailed over the private interest of Mr Kamenov. Mr Kamenov appealed to the Administrative Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. However, in December 2014 the court upheld the decision made at first-instance.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for family life), Mr Kamenov complained that the exclusion order and the re-entry ban imposed on him had violated the right to respect for his
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction: EUR 12,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,390 (costs and expenses)