Third section

B. Annulment of the applicant’s Russian citizenship and passports
17. On 5 April 2018, referring to the finding of the domestic courts that 
the applicant had submitted false (incomplete) information about his 
relatives, the DMI annulled his Russian citizenship, his “internal passport” 
(a citizen’s identity document for use in Russia) and “travel passport” (a 
citizen’s identity document for use abroad). As a result, the applicant was 
left without any valid identity documents.
C. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
18. On an unspecified date in 2018 the applicant challenged the 
compatibility of section 22 of the Russian Citizenship Act (see paragraph 33 
below) with the Russian Constitution. He claimed that it arbitrarily provided 
for the annulment of Russian citizenship without taking into account a 
person’s individual circumstances. The applicant further noted that Russian 
law did not stipulate any time-limit for the annulment of citizenship.
19. On 15 January 2019 the Constitutional Court refused to examine his 
complaint on the merits. It held that the application of the impugned section 
of the Russian Citizenship Act could only result in the automatic annulment 
of Russian citizenship if it had been established that a person did not meet 
the conditions required for obtaining citizenship. It also noted that the 
wording of the impugned section did not absolve the authorities from taking 
into account surrounding circumstances, such as the time elapsed since the 
decision granting Russian citizenship. According to the court, to hold 
otherwise would be contrary to the principles of the rule of law and justice 
or the requirements of necessary and proportionate interference with human 
rights. Lastly, the court mentioned that the decision to annul a person’s 
citizenship could be challenged in court and was thus subject to its scrutiny.

---

USMANOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
4
III. ENTRY BAN
20. On 12 April 2018 the Novgorod Regional Department of the Federal 
Security Service drew up a decision imposing on the applicant a 
thirty-five-year entry ban preventing him from entering Russia until 
April 2053. It was stated that he posed a threat to national security and 
public order. He was informed of that decision on 14 June 2018.
21. On an unspecified date he challenged the entry ban before the 
Regional Court, which dismissed his appeal on 29 November 2018. The 
court found that the entry ban had been issued by the competent authority 
on the grounds that he posed a threat to Russia’s national security. Without 
disclosing the information underlying that conclusion, the court held that the 
impugned measure was appropriate in the applicant’s situation. The court 
noted that he could settle in any country, including Tajikistan. There was no 
risk to his life there. His family could follow him or stay in Russia. If that 
happened, he could support them from abroad.
22. The applicant appealed against the Regional Court’s decision to the 
Supreme Court of Russia. The appeal was dismissed on 17 April 2019 on 
the grounds that the Regional Court when examining the case had not 
breached substantive or procedural rules of domestic law in a manner that 
could affect the outcome of the proceedings.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE REMOVAL
23. On 13 August 2018 the DMI informed the applicant of his obligation 
to leave Russian territory before 17 August 2018 given the entry ban 
imposed on him by the Federal Security Service. He did not comply with 
the order.
24. On 29 November 2018 a DMI officer drew up an administrative 
offence report in respect of the applicant for breaching the rules governing 
the stay of foreign nationals in Russia, specifically for his failure to comply 
with the DMI’s order to leave the country. The case was transferred to the 
District Court for examination on the merits.
25. On the same day, 29 November 2018, that court, taking into account 
the annulment of the applicant’s Russian citizenship, the imposition of the 
entry ban on him and his failure to comply with the order to leave Russia, 
found him guilty of an administrative offence under Article 18.8 § 1.1 of the 
Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”), namely “a breach by a 
foreigner or stateless person of the rules for entry into Russia or staying in 
the country”. It imposed a fine on him in the amount of RUB 2,000 
(EUR 29) and ordered his forcible administrative removal from Russia.
26. The court imposed the minimum fine provided for by domestic law 
because the applicant had never committed other administrative offences 
and had dependent minor children. It did not however see any circumstances 

---

USMANOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
5
which would prevent it from applying administrative removal as a sanction. 
The court dismissed the applicant’s argument concerning the adverse effect 
of the removal on his family situation, stating that a foreigner could not be 
exempt from compliance with Russian law on the grounds that his relatives 
were Russian nationals.
27. The applicant was immediately placed in a temporary 
detention centre for foreigners pending his administrative removal. He 
appealed against the court’s decision, arguing that his removal would be in 
breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
28. On 11 December 2018 the Novgorod Regional Court upheld the 
decision in question. It stated that there was no evidence that the applicant’s 
removal from Russia would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. It 
also held that Article 8 of the Convention did not prevent States from 
controlling the entry and stay of foreigners in their territory. Furthermore, 
according to the court, that Article did not impose on the State an obligation 
to respect the choice of residence of spouses or to allow family reunification 
in its territory.
V. INTERIM MEASURES AND STAY OF REMOVAL
29. On 10 December 2018 the Court granted the applicant’s request for 
interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in connection with his 
complaints under Articles 3 and 8 and indicated to the Russian Government 
not to remove him to Tajikistan for the duration of the proceedings before 
the Court.
30. On 19 December 2018 the District Court ordered that the 
proceedings concerning the applicant’s removal be stayed for the duration 
of the proceedings before the Court. The applicant continued to be detained 
in custody. On unspecified dates he appealed against his detention.
31. On 21 December 2018 and on 22 May 2019 the Regional Court and 
the Supreme Court of Russia respectively dismissed the applicant’s appeals.
32. On an unspecified date in 2019 the applicant challenged the 
lawfulness of his continued detention in custody, but on 27 September 2019 
the District Court declared that it was lawful.
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK