Third section

(b) The Government
48. The Government submitted that there had been an interference with 
the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, which had fully 
satisfied the requirements of its second paragraph. It had pursued the 
legitimate aim of guaranteeing national security; it had been lawful and 
proportionate to that aim.
49. According to the Government, the “quality of law” requirement had 
not been breached in the present case. The applicable domestic law 
stipulated a person’s duty to provide exhaustive information related to his 
application for Russian citizenship in a clear and foreseeable manner. The 
legislative rules did not provide the authorities with any discretion 
prescribing that in such a situation citizenship had to be annulled in any 
event.
50. Furthermore, the Government stated that the applicant’s refusal to 
leave Russia of his own initiative had shown his lack of respect for Russian 
law. That fact, together with the threat which he posed to national security, 
warranted the necessity for his removal from Russia. The reasons 
underlying the applicant’s entry ban had been carefully examined by the 
domestic courts in adversarial proceedings.
51. Lastly, the Government submitted that applicant’s family situation 
and his ties with Russia and Tajikistan had been duly taken into account and 
assessed by the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning his 
administrative removal.

---

USMANOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
10