Third section

particularly relevant given that during his stay in Russia the applicant had 
not committed any offences.
79. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the 
Convention on account of the decision to remove the applicant from the 
country.
80. In the light of the above conclusion, the Court considers that it is not 
necessary to examine as to whether the imposition of the entry ban on the 
applicant satisfied the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
81. On 23 September 2019 the applicant submitted additional complaint 
under Article 6 of the Convention. Having regard to all the material in its 
possession, and in so far as this complaint falls within the Court’s 
competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a 
violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its 
Protocols. This part of the application must therefore be rejected as being 
manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the 
Convention.
III. RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT
82. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the 
Convention, the present judgment will not become final until (a) the parties 
declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand 
Chamber; or (b) three months after the date of the judgment, if referral of 
the case to the Grand Chamber has not been requested; or (c) the Panel of 
the Grand Chamber rejects any request to refer under Article 43 of the 
Convention.
83. It considers that the indication made to the Government under 
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see paragraph 29 above) should remain in 
force until the present judgment becomes final or until the Court takes a 
further decision in this connection (see, 
mutatis mutandis, Neulinger and 
Shuruk v. Switzerland
[GC], no. 41615/07, § 10, ECHR 2010, and 
Nunez 
v. Norway
, no. 55597/09, § 4, 28 June 2011).

---

USMANOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
17
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
84. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols 
thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only 
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to 
the injured party.”