SECRETARIAT GENERAL

SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES

Contact: Clare Ovey Tel: 03 88 41 36 45

Date: 21/12/2015 DH-DD(2015)1383

Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Meeting: 1250th meeting (8-10 March 2016) (DH)

Item reference: Action plan (17/12/2015)

Communication from the Russian Federation concerning the case of Georgia v. Russia (I) (Application No.13255/07). (46 pages)

* * * * * * * * * * *

Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.

Réunion : 1250e réunion (8-10 mars 2016) (DH)

Référence du point : Plan d’action (17/12/2015)

Communication de la Fédération de Russie concernant l’affaire Géorgie contre Russie (I) (Requête n°13255/07). (46 pages) (anglais uniquement)

DG 1 1 7 DEC. 2015 ACTION PLAN SERVICE DE L'EXECUTION on the execution of the judgment of the European ~ii~AA RETS DE LA CEDH of H uman Rights in case no. 13255/07 Georgia v. R ussia (/) (j udgment of3 J une 2013, finaJ on the same day) Violation

In its judgment in the case of Georgia v. Russia (I) the European Court of Human Rights fo und a violation by the Russian authorities of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on account of the expulsion of Georgian nationals fro m the Russian Federation without proper assess­ ment of each individual case (collective expulsion); Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on ac­ count of the detention of these nationals for their further administration expulsion; Article 3 of the Convention on account of failure to ensure adequate conditions of their detention in special facilities for temporary detention of aliens pending their administrative expul­ sion ("the special centers"); Article 13 in conjunction with Article 5 § 4 and Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective remedies against the respective viola­ tions; Article 38 of the Convention on account of failure to furnish all necessary docu­ ments to the Court.

Individual Measures

As the Court has not yet decided on the amounts of compensation to be awarded and on the persons falling within the scope of this judgment, there are no grounds to take indi­ vidual measures at the moment. General Measures 111.1. Administrative practice

Having found inter-connected violations of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Con­ vention, Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention, the Court established the existence of an administrative practice against Georgian nationals from 27 September 2006 until January 2007 (detention of a number of respective persons, their placement in special centers pending administrative expulsion). It should be noted that the violations found by the Comt concern only the actions and decisions against persons illegally present in the Russian Federation or persons who had infringed the statutory provisions on residence in Russian territory (complaints of the Georgian party about the expulsion of Georgian nationals legally present in Russia and Russian nationals of Georgian origin were dismissed). The Court also found it unneces­ sary to examine the complaints of the applicant state under Article 14 of the Convention (discrimination) in the particular circumstances of the case. It should also be emphasized that the Court established the specific period, during which the respective violations regarded as an administrative practice had been commit­ ted. Neither the judgment in the case of Georgia v. Russia (!) nor other judgments deJiv- 2 ered by the Court in the cases against Russia contain any evidence of similar violations by the Russian Government after January 2007. Besides, the Russian domestic law and relevant practice concerning the regulations in question had been fundamentally reformed since January 2007. The respective measures made as clear and transparent as possible the procedures for the entry of foreign nationals to the Russian Federation, their residence in the country, state control over their compliance with the Russian laws, and the procedure for the application of coercive measures, including those related to the administrative arrest and expulsion from Russia. Therefore, the adequate legal and organizational safeguards against collective expul­ sion and adminish·ative practice in respect of fo reign nationals, including even those ille­ gally present in Russia in violation of the Russian laws, have been developed in the Rus­ sian Federation, and currently are successfully applied. In this regard the following, in particular, should be reported. 1. Pursuant to the Constitution of the Russian Federation 1 ("the Constitution"), in the Russian Federation the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognised and guaran­ teed according to the universally recognised principles, norms of intetnational law and in­ temational treaties. According to the Constitution, these rights are applied within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, and foreign nationals and stateless persons enjoy the same rights as 2 nationals of the Russian Federation • 2. In 2012 the President of the Russian Federation ("the President") re-established the Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation ("the FMS of Russia") as an in­ dependent federal executive agency (earlier the FMS of Russia was under the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation) in order to improve the devel­ opment and implementation of the state migration policy. The Decree of the President of 21 May 201 23 stipulates that the activities of the FMS of Russia shall be governed by the Government of the Russian Federation directly ("the Government"). 4 According to the Regulation on the FMS of Russia , the activities of this agency shall be governed not only by this Regulation, the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation, but also by the universally recognized principles, norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation. In its new status, the FMS of Russia, acting in accordance with the Decrees of the President and together with other competent state agencies, took a number of measures to improve the state migration policy and its implementation.

1 Article 17 § I, Article 15 § 4 ofthe Constitution; Federal Law no. 101-FZ of 15 July 1995 On International Treaties ofthe Russian Federation. 2 Article 62 of the Constitution 3 Decree of the President no. 636 of 21 May 2012 On Structure of Federal Executive Agencies (as amended on 21 July 20 15) ("the Decree of the President no. 636 of21 May 2012"). 4 The Regulation On the Federal Migration Service was approved by Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation no. 7 11 of 13 July 2012 On the Federal Migration Service (as amended on 31 October 20 15) ("the Regulation on the FMS of Russia", "Resolution of the Russian Government no. 711 of 13 July 2012"). 3 3. In June 20 12 the President approved The Concept of the State Migration Policy of the Russian Federation up to 2025 ("the Concept"), which defined the subject matter, principles and key areas of the migration policy of the Russian Federation. The document clearly reads that it had been developed in compliance with the uni­ versally recognised principles and norms of international law and with obligations of the Russian Federation arising from international migration treaties. The Concept defines, inter alia, the following fundamental principles of the state mi­ gration policy: protection of the rights and freedoms of a man and citizen; non­ discrimination on any grounds; compliance with the norms of Russian and international law; harmonization of the interests of an individual, public and state; transparency and ac­ cessibility of information about the migration processes and about decisions related to the state migration policy of the Russian Federation. The objectives of the migration policy include the following: creation of adequate conditions for the residence of different categories of foreign nationals in the country; countering the illegal migration along with provision of support to migrants, their adapta­ tion and integration; development of meaningful dealings between migrants and receiving communities. The Concept also defines the specific activity areas to be focused on in or­ der to achieve the specified objectives, including the international migration cooperation, information and analytical support and key arrangements for the implementation of the migration policy of the Russian Federation. The Concept is designed to be implemented in 3 stages within the period up to 2025 (2012-2015, 2016-2020, 2021-2025), and the respective activities are determined for each stage. For the purpose of this Concept, the Government shall approve action plans for each stage. In particular, the Government approved the respective action plans on the imple­ mentation of the Concept for 201 2-2015 (Order of the Government No. 1502-r of 21 Au­ gust 2012, as amended by Order no. 651-r of22 April2014) and for 2016-2020 (Order of the Government No. 2122r of 22 October 20 15). The above action plans include specific lists of planned actions, deadlines of their execution, those responsible. 4. During the implementation of the Concept and the action plan for 2012-2015, as approved by the Government, the major amendments have been introduced to the several federal laws, furthered by decrees of the President, resolutions of the Government, inter­ agency orders and instructions. 5 4.1. Thus, Federal Law no. 115-FZ of25 July 2002 , Federal Law no. 11 4-FZ of 15 6 7 August 1996 , Federal Law no. 109-FZ of 18 July 2006 have been amended. The amendments concern, inter alia:

s Federal Law no. 115-FZ of25 July 2002 On Legal Status ofFore ign Nationals in the Russian Federation (as amended on 13 July 2015) ("lhe Federal Law no. 115-FZ of25 July 2002"}; 6 federal Law no. 114-FZ of 15 August 1996 On the Procedure for Entering and Leaving the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law no. 213-FZ of 13 July) ("the Federal Law no. 114-FZ of 15 August 1996"); . 7 Federal Law no. 109-FZ of 18 July 2006 On the Registration in the Russian Federation of Migrants who are Forezgn Na­ tionals or Stateless persons (as amended on 28 December 20 13) ("the Federal Law no. I 09-FZ of 18 July 2006"); 4 • clarification and introduction of new definitions used in the laws that regulate the procedure for residency of foreign nationals in the Russian Federation (for examples, "re­ ceiving party", "receiving party for a foreign national or stateless person", "migration reg­ istration", ''work permit", "patent", "special authority", "fictitious registration", "fictitious registration according to the place of stay", etc.); • procedure for inviting to the Russian Federation, terms of temporary residence of foreign nationals in the Russian Federation, procedure for extending and reducing the terms of temporary residence depending on situation; clarifications and additions to the list of grounds for issuing visas to foreign nationals, clarification of the list of parties enti­ tled to apply for inviting to the Russian Federation, improvement of nonns that regulate the visa issuance; clearer regulation of requirements for the documents to be submitted for temporary residence application, regulation of rights and obligations (of both foreign na­ tionals applying for temporary residence and migration authorities), grounds for refusals to issue temporary residence permits and grounds for their cancellation; terms of issuance of residence permits to foreign nationals, requirements for the documents to be submitted for application; procedure for velification of identity of foreign nationals holding no valid identification documents; procedure for migration registration of foreign nationals at the place of their stay and residence; procedure for obtaining work pennits and employment of foreign nationals (along with regulation of the rights and obligations of foreign nation­ als, employers and competent state and municipal authorities) and their education and training in the Russian Federation; procedure for providing medical assistance to foreign nationals under medical insurance policies and in accordance with agreements signed be­ tween employers or clients and medical facilities; • electronic record keeping, including the records of applications and requests sub­ mitted by foreign nationals, and communications by competent state authorities with them; • organization of federal state control over the stay and residence of foreign nationals in the Russian Federation, including control over their employment; cooperation between the federal migration authorities and other public and municipal authorities, procedure for provision of requested information from the migration registration information system; • powers of the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation with regard to restoration of violated rights of foreign nationals, improvement of the laws of the Russian Federation related to this kind of legal relationships; • liability of foreign nationals, stateless persons or legal entities that failed to comply with the requirements of the Russian laws; • detention of a foreign national in a special centre pending administrative expulsion, deportation and re-admission (under the statutory procedures). 4.2. A number of executive orders were issued in furtherance of the adopted laws. 5 4.2.1. By its Resolution no. 1162 of 13 November 20128 the Government approved the Regulation on federal state migration control (supervision) which enshrined the major requirements for this kind of control. 9 By joint order no. 367 and 807 of31 July 2015 , the FMS of Russia and Ministry of the Interior of Russia respectively approved the Administrative Rules for execution by the FMS of Russia, its regional departments, departments of the interior of the Russian Feder­ ation, of public functions relating to federal state control (supervision) over the stay and residence of foreign nationals and stateless persons in the Russian Federation, and em­ ployment of foreign employees. The above Administrative Rules determine the scope of state control over the stay and residence of foreign nationals, employment of foreign employees; they also contain the list of legal regulations concerning execution of relevant public functions, determine the tenns and order of administrative procedures (actions) to be performed by competent officials, their rights and obligations in the course of state control, and rights and obliga­ tions of persons subjected to the relevant actions. Moreover, the Administrative Rules contain the requirements for notification about the execution of public functions, includ­ ing the notification through open information systems, and they regulate the pre-trial pro­ cedure for appeal against decisions and actions (omissions) by the FMS of Russia and Ministry of the Interior of Russia, their officials, in the course of execution of public con­ trol functions. 4.2.2. On 4 March 2010 the Federal Bai liff Service of Russia and FMS of Russia (no. 12/01-2 and no. KR-1 /4-3155) approved the Agreement on cooperation in the course of the execution of decisions delivered in the administrative proceedings and other execu­ tion documents. On 12 September 2012 the above Agreement was amended by adding the norm providing that the procedure for inter-agency cooperation in the course of the execution of court decisions fo r administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation shall be regulat­ ed by a special inter-agency document. On 19 May 2014 the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Feder­ al Migration Service and the Federal Security Service of Russia (by orders nos. 100, 7509, 375, 271 respectively)10 issued a joint order to approve the Procedure for cooperation be-

8 Resolution of the Government of !.he Russian Federation no. 1162 of 13 November 2012 On Approval ofRegulation on Fed­ eral State Migration Control (Supervision) 9 Order of the FMS of Russia no. 367, Order of the Ministry of the Interior No. 807 of 3 1 July 2015 On Approval of the Ad­ ministrative Rules for execution by the FMS of Russia, its regional departmellls, departments of the illferior of the Russian Federation, ofpublic functiollS related to federal state control (supervision) over the stay and residence offoreign nationals and stateless persons in the Russian Federation, and employment offoreign employees (registered by the Ministry of Justice of Russia on 22 October 2015 under no. 39426). 10 Order of the Ministry of Justice of Russia no. I 00, Order of th e Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia no. 7509, Order of the Federal Migration Service of Russia no. 375, Order of the Federal Security Service no. 271 of 19 May 2014 On Approval of Procedure for Cooperation between the Federal Bailiff Service, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Federal Migration Service and Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation in the course of administrative expulsion of foreign nationals and stateless persons from the Russian Federation in the form of forced and controlled crossing of the state border of the Russian Federation (registered by the Ministry of Justice on 10 June 2014 under no. 32640) ("Order of the Min­ istry of Justi ce of Russia no. 100", "Order of the Ministry of Foreign A fTairs of Russia no. 7509", "Order of the Federal Mi­ gration Service of Russia no. 375", "Order of the Federal Security Service of Russia no. 271 of 19 May 2014"). 6 tween the Federal Bailiff Service, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Federal Migration Service and the Federal Security Service in the course of administrative expulsion of for­ eign nationals and stateless persons from the country in the form of forced and controlled crossing of the state border of the Russian Federation. This document clearly regulates the conditions and procedure for inter-agency cooperation in the course of administrative ex­ pulsion from Russia. 4.2.3. By its Resolution no. 94 of 14 February 200i 1 (as amended on 2 October 2014 ), the Russian Government approved the Regulation on state information system for migration registration (Regulation no. 94 ), which is the inter-agency automated systems based on databases and other information systems specified by the above Resolution of the Russian Government. Regulation no. 94 defines the objectives of the information sys­ tem, content of its data, participants of information exchange; it regulates the system func­ tioning, procedure for accessing its data, cooperation between the migration registration authorities and other public authorities, its information protection, and liabilities of the in­ formation exchange participants. On 25 June 2007 the inter-agency order regulating the procedure for relevant coop­ eration between the competent public authorities was issued. 12 On 14 March 2007 the FMS of Russia issued Order no. 48 , by which it provided for a number of particular measures to protect the information within the system of the FMS ofRussia. 13 4.2.4. By its Order no. 214 of 22 April 2013 (as amended on 24 Febmary 2015) , the FMS of Russia approved The Administrative Rules for Provision by the FMS ofRussia of Public Services Related to Issuance of Temporary Residence Permit in the Russian Federation to Foreign Nationals and Stateless persons. The above Administrative Rules determine the principles and procedure for issu­ ance of temporary residence permits in Russia to foreign nationals and stateless persons, as well as stipulate the requirements for the procedure of notification about the provision of relevant public services, eligible applicants, exhaustive list of documents to be submit­ ted along with application for permit, opportunity to submit electronic application, terms and procedure for applications consideration and permits issuance, etc. The forms of re­ quired documents were also approved. 14 By its Order no. 321 of29 June 2015 , the FMS of Russia approved the Procedure for Extending or Reducing the Term of Temporary Residence of Foreign Nationals or Stateless persons in the Russian Federation.

11 Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation no. 94 of 14 February 2007 (as amended on 2 October 2014) On Stare Information System for Migration Registration. 12 Order of the FMS of Russia no. 48 of 14 March 2007 On Proteclion ofInformation wilhin the System ofthe FMS ofRussi a. 13 Order of the FMS of Russia no. 214 of22 Apri12013 (as amended on 24 February 20 15) On Approval ofth e Administrative Rules for Provision by the FMS of Russia ofPubli c Services Related to Issuance of Temporary Residence Permit in the Rus­ sian Federation to Foreign Nationals and Stateless persons (registered by the Ministry of Justice of Russia on 22 January 2014 under number 31076). 14 Order of the FMS of Russia no. 321 of29 June 2015 On Approval of the Procedure for Extending or Reducing the Tenn of Temporary Residence of Foreign Nationals or Stateless persons in the Russian Federation (registered by the Ministry of Jus­ tice of Russia on 12 August 2015 w1der no. 38484). -·- ·------....

7 15 4.2.5. By its Order no. 649 of9 December 2014 , the FMS of Russia approved the Procedures for Detection by Regional Departments of the FMS ofRussia of fictitious reg­ istration at the place of residence of a foreign national and fictitious registration of a for­ eign national at the place of stay in residential premises. The above Procedures provide for the subject matter and order of actions by the competent officials with regard to detec­ tion of fictitious registration. 4.2.6. A number of regulations concerning the procedure of employment of foreign nationals in Russia were issued (orders of the FMS of Russia no. 147 of28 June 2010 16, 17 18 no. 630 of 3 December 2014 , no. 639 of 8 December 2014 , Resolution of the Govern­ 19 ment of the Russian Federation no. 286 of 16 April 2011 ) . 4.2.7. A number of regulations related to the placement of foreign nationals in spe­ cial facilities and to the provision of proper conditions of detention in these facilities were also issued, for more details see Section III.II. §§ 2 and 3 below. 5. Having regard to the amendments and additions introduced to the legislation after the impugned events, the necessary special legal and organizational safeguards aimed to ensure the protection of the rights of foreign nationals in R ussia against the al­ leged violations of the Convention on account of administrative arrest, detention in spe­ cial facilities and facilities of the departments of the interior, administrative expulsion, have been introduced in the Russian Federation. 5.1. The fo llowing should be noted in respect of the safeguards of the protection of the rights of foreign nationals in the course of administrative detention. 5.1.1. The administrative detention and escorting shall be performed only under the conditions and procedure provided for by the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation ("the CAO RF"), and only in exceptional cases for the following pur­ poses: to prevent an administrative offence, identify the offender, prepare the administra- . tive offence report, ensure rapid and fair consideration of the administrative case and exe-

15 Order of the FMS of Russia no. 649 of 9 December 2014 On Approval of the Procedure of Detection by Regional Depart­ ments ofthe FMS ofRussia of Fictitious Registration of a Foreign National or Stateless person at the Place of Residence in Residential Premises, which He is Entitled to Use and Where He is Registered, and ofth e Procedure for Detection by Region­ al Departmellls ofthe FMS ofRussia ofFictitious Registration ofa Foreign National or Stateless person at the Place ofStay in Residential Premises (registered by the Ministry of Justice on 26 Febn~ary 2015 under no. 36235). 16 Order of the FMS of Russia no. 147 of28 June 20 I 0 (as amended on 12 March 20 15) On Form and Procedure for Notifica­ tion of the Federal Migration Service about Employment of Foreign Nationals in the Russian Federation (registered by the Ministry of Justice of Russia on 30 July 2010 under no. 1801 0}. 17 Order of the FMS of Russia no. 630 of 3 December 2014 On Approval ofStandard Form ofAgreement on Cooperation between the Federal Migration Service and Constituent Entity of the Russian Federation Providing for Participation of Or­ ganization Authorized by Comtituent Entity of the Russian Federation in Exercise of Powers in the Course of Provision of Public Services Related to Registration and Issuance ofPatents to Foreign Nationals and Stateless persons (registered by the Ministry of Justice on 29 December 2014 under no. 35452). 18 Order of the FMS of Russia no. 639 of 8 December 2014 (as amended on 2 October 20 15} On Approval ofForms ofAppli ­ cations for Patent Issuance and Re-Registration, Issuance of Pate/It Duplicate Copy and Amending the Patent Information (registered by the Ministry of Justice on 24 December 2014 under no. 353 75). 19 Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation no. 286 of 16 April 20 II On conduct of a data bank on foreign nationals' employment realization 8 20 cute the relevant court decision in the case • The administrative detention shall be per­ formed by authorized officials (the law provides for exhaustive list of these officials). Administrative detention is a short-term deprivation of an individual's Iiberti ', the terms of administrative detention are regulated by the laws and they shall not exceed 48 22 hours . A detainee shall be either brought to the court or released within the above peri­ od. The administrative detention shall be documented by the relevant report where the date and place of its preparation, job title and full name of a person who prepared it, the 23 information about a detainee, date, place and grounds for detention shall be indicated . A detainee shall be explained his rights and obligations under the CAO RF, and the respec­ 24 tive record shall be made in the administrative detention report • Upon the request of a detainee, his fami ly members, administration of his place of employment (study), his law­ yer shall be informed of his whereabouts as soon as possible (i.e. immediately or at the 25 earliest possible time) • The administrative detention report shall be signed by an official who prepared it and by a detainee. In case a detainee refuses to sign a report, the respec­ tive record shall be made in the administrative detention report. Upon a detainee's request, a copy of the administrative detention report shall be handed over to him. A person who is subject to proceedings under the CAO shall have the right to study the case file material, submit explanations, produce evidence, lodge petitions and requests, 6 receive legal assistance from a defense counsee , and shall also have other procedural 27 rights under the CA0 . A defense counsel shall be admitted to the administrative proceedings immediately 28 upon institution of administrative proceedings • The number of meetings of an adminis­ trative detainee with his defense counsel shall not be limited by any regulations. 5.1.2. In 2011 , i.e. after the events in question, Federal Law no. 3-FZ of 7 February 2011 On Police ("the Police Act") was adopted under the comprehensive reform of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation ("the MVD of Russia"); the new law introduced the following new statutory provisions. • With regard to the detention, Federal Law no. 3-FZ of 7 February 20 I I On Police enshrines the basic principle according to which the police shall protect every person's right to freedom and personal immunity, and a person may be subjected to detention pending trial only in cases provided for by the federal laws for no more

20 Article 27.1 § I, Article 27.2 § 2 and 3 of the CAO RF. 21 Article 27.3 of the CAO RF. 22 Article 27.5 of the CAO RF. 23 Article 27.4 of the CAO RF 24 Article 27.3 § 5 of the CAO RF 25 Article 27.3 § 3 of the CAO RF 26 Article25.l § l oflheCAO RF 27 Article 25.1 of the CAO RF 28 Article 25.5 § 4 of the CAO RF 9 than 48 hours (Article 14 § 1). The Police Act also provides for an exhaustive list of cases when the police officers are authorized to detain a person (Article 14 § 2). • The major innovation of the Police Act lies in the obligation of a police of­ ficer, in case of application against a person of measures restricting his rights and freedoms, to inform a person (immediately at the place of detention and upon ad­ dressing him) of the reason and grounds of his detention, his respective rights and obligations, the obligation to introduce himself by naming his title, rank, family name, to produce his official ID upon the request of a person (Article 5 § 4). Pursuant to Article 5 § 3 of the police act, a police officer shall inform a detain­ ee of his rights to legal assistance, translator's assistance, notification of his family members and friends about his detention, refusal to testify, every time when such re­ stricting measures as detention are taken (whether the detention is a measure of crim­ inal procedural or administrative coercion). Therefore, at the moment the Police Act clearly prescribes police officers to ex­ plain to detainees their rights at the moment of their detention, and it also eliminates the previously existing ambiguity regarding explanation of their rights to persons de­ tained under the administrative procedure and possibility to exercise these rights from the moment of actual restriction of their freedom of movement. • Pursuant to the Federal Law On Police, a detainee (including the one subject­ ed to administrative detention) shall have the right to make one telephone call as soon as possible (within 3 hours from the moment of his detention) to inform his family members and friends about his detention and whereabouts. Therefore, this provision eliminated the previously existing ambiguity regarding the term during which an administrative detainee had the right to info rm his family members and friends about his detention. 29 • By its Order no. 389 of 30 April 2012 , the MVD of Russia approved the Regulation on Procedure for Pe1jorming Duties and Exercising Rights by Police Of­ ficers in Police Duty Units of Regional Departments of the MVD ofRussia when De­ tainees are Delivered as Approved by Order of the MVD of Russia ("the Regula­ tion"), which regulates the procedure for safeguarding the rights of an individual dur­ ing his detention. The respective detailed infmmation is available in the Action Plan on the execution of the judgment in the Mikheyev group of cases (DH­ DD(2013)933) under Section "Guarantees of detainees' rights when they are deliv­ ered to police duty unit".

29 Order of the MVD of Russia no. 389 of 30 April 20 12 On Appro~·a/ of the Regulation on Procedure for Petforming Duties and Exercising Rights by Police Officers in Police Duty Units of Regional Departments of the MVD ofRussia when Detainees are Delivered (registered by the Ministry of Justice on 26 Jun e 2012 under no. 24696). 10 30 By its order no. 512 of 19 June 2014 , the MVD of Russia introduced amendments to the Regulation concerning the keeping of Register of persons brought to duty units, and amendments providing that examination of applications filed by persons brought to the police stations shall be regulated by the additional Instruction On Organization of Examination of Citizens' Applications within the System of the Ministry ofthe Interior ofthe Russian Federation, adopted in the reporting period, in addition to the Federal Law On Procedure for Examination ofApplications Filed by Citizens of the Russian Federation. The above instruction regulates in detail the pro­ cedure for examination of applications fi led by persons brought to the police sta­ tions31. 5.1.3. The higher courts of the Russian Federation provided the detailed expla­ nations regarding the administrative detention to further the above legal provisions. 32 • Thus, in its Resolution 9-P of 16 June 2009 , the Constitutional Court re­ ferred directly to the provisions of the Convention and noted that any deprivation of liberty, including the administrative detention for more than 48 hours, shall be exe­ cuted not only in compliance with the major procedural requirements of the Russian law, but also in compliance with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention. In particular, the Constitutional Court noted that the administrative detention of a per­ son shall be considered lawful if it was effected for the purpose of bringing a person before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so. It also noted that the concept of "lawful de­ tention" includes the obligation of the state authmities and their official to observe the norms of material and procedural law. The court shall, in its turn, review both the observance of the procedural norms, which are the basis for detention, and the rea­ sonableness of this measure with reference to its aims, and whether this measure was necessary and reasonable under the conditions that served as a ground for its applica­ tion. At the same time, the official effecting of administrative detention must rely on facts, which are sufficient for objectively reasonable suspicion that the specific per­ son may have committed the offence.

30 Order of the MVD of Russia no. 512 of 19 Ju ne 2014 On Introduction ofAmendments to the Regulation on Procedure for Performing Duties and Exercising Rights by Police Officers in Police Duty Units of Regional Departments of the MVD of Russia when Detainees are Delivered as Approved by Order ofthe MVD ofRus sia no. 389 of30 April 20 I2 (registered by the Ministry of Justice on 25 July 20 14 under no. 33280) 31 The respective detailed infonnation is available in the Action Report on the execution of the judgments in the Miklreyev rrroup of cases (DH-DD(20 15)44) f2 Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation no. 9-P of 16 June 2009 in the case conceming the review of the constitutionality of the provisions of Articles 24.5, 27.1, 27.3, 27.5 and 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, Article I 070 § I and the third sentence of Article I I 00 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and Article 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation in connection with complaints of M. Yu. Karel in, Y. K. Rogozl1kin, and M. V. Filandrov 11

• On 2 July 2013 the Constitutional Court delivered the Ruling no. 1049-033 , where it emphasized that in assessing the reasons for detention stated in the adminis­ trative detention report, a court shall verify that the detention in this particular case was the only possible protective measure to be used against an offender. 34 • In its Resolution no. 2 1 of27 June 2013 , the Plenum of the Supreme Court clearly stated that the legal position of the European Court of Human Rights indicat­ ed in the judgments against Russia shall be binding on all national courts, while the judgments in the cases against other countries shall be taken into account by national courts. The Plenum noted that any kind of restriction of human rights and freedoms, including the application of custodial measures, shall be prescribed by law, pursue the legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society, i.e. it shall be propor­ tionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It noted that the failure to comply with any of those limiting criteria would amount to the violation of human rights and freedoms which are subject to judicial protection. 5.1.4. Additions to Order no. 195 of 07 December 2007 were introduced by Order 35 of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation no. 342 of 01 July 2015 . The aforementioned order also instructs the Prosecutors to suppress all facts of unlawful ad­ ministrative detention of citizens, as well as other administrative responsibility measures, and to exercise actively their right provided for by the Federal Law "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" to release individuals36 who have undergone the unsub­ stantiated administrative detention. 5.2. As for the guarantees of the rights of foreign citizens in course of adminis­ trative expulsion and placing into special centers, the fo llowing should be noted: 5.2.1. The administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation is an extreme measure which can be appli ed to foreign citizens and stateless persons violating the rules of stay within the territory of Russia; it may be applied only on the basis of a court deci- . 37 SlOn • The case regarding the administrative expulsion of a foreign national shall be sub­ mitted for examination by the judge immediately upon drawing up the administrative of­ 8 fence report and is subject to consideration by court on the day of its receipe •

33 Ru ling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation no. I 049-0 of2 July 2013 on ref\lsal to examine the complaint of Yevgeniy Yuryevich Borodin about the violation ofhis constitutional rights by Article 1070 § I and Article 11 00 § 3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, by Article 27.1 § I, Article 27.3 § I and Article 27.5 § I of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. 34Pienary Resolution of the Supreme Court no. 21 of 27 Jw1e 2013 on application by courts of general jurisdiction of the Con­ vention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November I 950 and Protocols thereto ("the Ple­ nary Resolution no. 21 of27 JWle 2013"). 350rder of the Prosecutor General no. 195 of07 December 2007 (as amended on 0 I July 20 15) "On Organisation of the Prose­ cutor's Supervision Over the Compliance with Legislation, Observation of Human and Civil Rights and freedoms". 36Fedcral Jaw of 17 Janual)' 1992 no. 2202-I "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 05 Octo­ ber2015; hereinafter- the Federal Law "On the Prosecutor's Office ofthe Russian Federation". 37 Article 3.1 § I, Article 3.3 §2, Article 3.10 §§ I, 2, 4, 5 of the CAO Rf. 38 Article 28.8 §2 and Article 29.6 §4 of the CAO RF. 12 5.2.2. In case the court preparing for consideration of a case finds any circumstanc­ es evidencing that the administrative offence report and/or other case files were drawn up incorrectly, or that the materials are incomplete, which can not be cured in course of case consideration, the courts shall rule to return the administrative offence report and other 39 40 materials to the authority or official who have drawn it up and to terminate the case . Plenary Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 19 December 2013 no. 40 provided the courts with additional clarifications as to correct­ ness of the administrative offence report from the perspective of complete investigation of the offence event and the data regarding the perpetrator, fulfilment of the established re­ port execution rules, including those related to the return of the report. 5.2.3. The procedure of case consideration is regulated in detail by CAO RF. It is reiterated that Plenary Resolution of the Supreme Court of RF no. 5 of 24 March 2005 "On Questions Arising before Courts when Applying the Code of Admin­ istrative Offences of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter- Plenary Resolution of the Su­ preme Court of 24 March 2005 no. 5t1 clarified to courts the key issues related to the procedure of the administrative offence consideration, including those related to imposing li ability in the form of administrative expulsion from the territory of the Russian Federa­ tion. At the same time, after the events which were considered by the European Court of 42 Human Rights within the period fi·om June 2010 till December 2013 , some Plenary Res­ olutions were adopted by the Supreme Court; they have introduced amendments and addi­ tions to Plenary Resolution of the Supreme Court of24 March 2005 no. 5. In particular, as regards the procedure of administrative offence consideration, additional clarifications were provided as to the jurisdiction and venue of the administrative expulsion cases, pro­ cedure of their preparation for trial and notification of the parties to the trial, as well as to involvement of the defense counsel and representative, procedure of considering motions for keeping court records and familiarizing the participants of court hearing with the rec­ ords (provided the decision for keeping them was made), and other clarifications which are mentioned below with regard to specific issues of considering cases related to admin­ istrative expulsion by courts. Apart from that, Federal Law of08 June 2012 no. 65-FZ introduced amendments to Article 25.1 of CAO RF. According to it, the administrative offences which are punisha­ ble with the administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation shall be considered in the presence of a person, with regard to whom the administrative proceedings are carried out. Plenary Resolution of the Supreme CoUit of 19 December 2013 no. 40 underlines that the aforementioned legal provision must be strictly followed. 5.2.4. When imposing the adm1nistrative punishment in the form of administrative expulsion, the judge shall describe the enforcement procedure: forcible expulsion from the

39 Article 29.4 § I (4) of the CAO RF 40 Article 24.5 of the CAO RF. 41 Plenary Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 24 March 2005 no. 5 (as amended on 19 December 20 13) "On Questions Arising before Courts when Applying the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation". 42 Plenary Resolution of the Supreme Court of 10 June 2010 no.l3, of 19 December 2013 no. 40, of09 February 2012 no.3. 13 43 Russian Federation or controlled unassisted exit from the Russian Federation • The judge 44 shall also proceed on the following basis : - in order to execute the judgment imposing punishment in the form of ad­ ministrative expulsion, he may put such individuals into special facilities. At the same time, Federal Law of21 July 2014 no. 232-FZ45 added a special chapter, "De­ tention of a Foreign National in a Special Facility", to Federal Law of25 July 2002 no. 115-FZ. - the administrative punishment in the form of controlled unassisted exit from the Russian Federation may be imposed, in case the administrative expulsion is carried out at the expense of a foreign national or stateless person or at the ex­ 46 pense of persons, bodies or entities which have invited them . Plenary Resolution of the Supreme Court of 19 December 2013 no. 40 amended Plenary Resolution of the Supreme Court of 24 March 2005 no. 5 and clarified to courts the possibility and procedure of solving the issue regarding the form of administrative expulsion, in case the decision for administrative expulsion does not mention its form. The corresponding clarifications are provided for by Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 11 May 2012 no. 835. 5.2.5. Current legislation provides for the courts' obligation to consider the whole stock of circumstances, when considering a particular case and imposing the administra­ tive punishment, including the proprietary status of a person brought to the liability, na­ ture of an administrative offence committed by him, other mitigating or aggravating cir­ cumstances47. Following the aforementioned events, the higher courts of the Russian Federation issued some important clarifications regarding the necessity to comply with that legal provision, based on the international standards, ECHR Case-Law and CMCE recommen­ dations. • Plenary Resolution ofthe Supreme Court of27 June 2013 no. 21 indi- cates expressly that courts shall apply any restrictive measure not only on the basis on law and for lawful purposes, but also with account for the fact whether such re­ striction is necessary in the democratic society, i.e. proportional to the purpose pur­ sued by law. • Plenary Resolution of the Supreme CoUit of 24 March 2005 no. 5 (as amended by Plenary Resolution of 19 December 2013 no. 40) drew attention to the fact that "when imposing punishment in the form of administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation, the judge shall proceed from the real need of bringing a foreign national or a stateless person to such liability, as well as from its propor-

~ 3 Article 3.10 §4 of CAO RF .\.1 Article 3. 10 §§ 5 and 6 ofCAO RF 45 Federal Law of2 1 July 2014 no. 232-FZ On Introduction ofAmend menls to Certain Legislative A cis ofthe Russian Federa­ tion in Conneclion wilh Improvement ofL egislation ofth e Russian Federation, Relating to Special Facilities in the Sphere of Migration (as amended on 08 March 20 15); 46 Article 16 of Federal Law no. 11 5-FZ On Legal Status ofForeign Cilizens in the Russian Federation. 47 Article 4.1 §2, articles 4.2 and 4.3 of the CAO RF. 14 tionality to the aims of the administrative punishment, in order to ensure the fair balance of public and private interests in the administrative proceedings". It was further noted, that "the specific circumstances related to an adminis­ trative offence (duration of illegal stay in the Russian Federation, repeated bringing to administrative responsibility, etc.) shall be subject to assessment in accordance with general rules for imposition of an administrative punishment based on the principles of fairness, proportionality and personalization of responsibility". It was also pointed out that punishment in the form of administrative expul­ sion can be imposed only in case it is the only possible way to reach the purpose of the administrative punishment connected with prevention of new offences by both the offender and other persons. • Similar clarifications were given in the Legislative and Judicial Prac- tice Review of the Supreme CoUit of the Russian Federation for the second qumter 2008 regarding the judicial practice of applying legal rules on the administrative 48 expulsion • It was noted that the administrative expulsion as a measure of adminis­ trative liability shall be applied with account for both the provisions of the national legislation and the international legal acts, to which the Russian Federation is a par­ ty. • Some Resolutions of the Constitutional Court also draw attention to the 49 need to take notice of the specific situation of a person deported • The recent Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 05 March 2014 no. 628-0 (delivered after the amendments providing for obligatory administrative expulsion in certain cases had been introduced into CAO RF) specitied that such amendments do not contradict the Constitution and that they correspond to findings provided for by earlier Resolutions of the Constitutional Cou1t regarding the compliance of such restrictions with the Constitution and Convention. However, the attention was once again drawn to the fact that the relevant re­ strictions may not be applied "automatically" and courts can not limit themselves to substantiating the formal grounds for applying the law when imposing the punish­ ment in the form of administrative expulsion, but shall rather examine and assess actual circumstances, including the family status of foreign nationals, in order to consider whether the administrative expulsion is proportional and necessary in the democratic society. 50 In Resolution of 12 March 2015 no. 4-ll , the Constitutional Court once again clarified the need to take notice of individual situation of a person departed, with reference to provisions of the Convention and ECHR.judgments.

48 Legislative and Judicial Practice Review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the Second Quarter 2008 (ap­ proved by Resolution of the Praesidium of the Supreme Court ofRF of 17 September 2008 as amended on 04 June 2014). 49 Sec, for example, Resolution ofthe Constitutional Court oftbe Russian Federation of 15 July 1999 no. 11-n, of 17 January 201 3 no. 1-ll; of 14 February 2013 no. 4-n; of 14 February 2013 no. 8-n and others . .so Resolution no. 4-n of 12 March 2015 "On Verification of Constitutionality of Provisions of Article 25.10 §4 of the Federal Law On the Procedure for Exit fi"om the Russian Federation and Entry Into the Russian Federation, Article 7 §I (13) of the Federal Law On Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation and Article II §2 of the Federal Law On Preven- 15 • The abovementioned legal positions of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court are directly applied not only by national courts, but also other state authorities, including those which initiate the administrative proceedings, draw up reports etc. 5.2.6. The decision is delivered upon consideration of an administrative offence case by the judge; it is immediately announced and a copy of the judgment is handed over 51 to an individual or his legal representative against the receipt acknowledgement • Plenary Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 19 Decem­ ber 2013 no. 40 provided courts with the additional clarifications as to the procedure of sending decisions to the individuals brought to administrative liability and their legal rep­ resentatives. 5.2.7. In case the procedure and way of enforcement of the administrative expulsion decision is unclear, a foreign national may apply to the comi which has delivered such de­ cision and ask for clarification of the way and procedure of its enforcement, as well as 52 other issues related to delay, suspension or termination of enforcement . A copy of the decision delivered with regard to such issues shall be also provided to an individual in whose relation it was issued or his/her representative against the receipt acknowledge­ ment. 5.2.8. It is of particular importance that regional courts generalise the practice of considering administrative offences and provide the results of such generalisation to the attention of courts within the relevant constituent entities of the Russian Federation and other competent state authorities of the relevant region. For example, the Moscow City Court (the region which revealed some violations of the administrative judicial procedures by courts within the relevant period) made three considerable generalisations of court practice, related to violation of the rules of stay with­ in the territory of the Russian Federation by foreign nationals and stateless persons, within the period from 2010 till 2014. The analysis findings indicate that Moscow courts, taken in general, apply the pro­ visions of the migration legislation correctly and comply with the procedure of adminis­ trative offence consideration, as provided for by the CAO RF (including compliance with legal requirements for mandatory participation of individuals, in whose respect the pro­ ceedings are conducted, in the relevant hearings, observance of their rights and examina­ tion of all case circumstances and individual situations of the alleged offenders). The analysis further indicates that in cases when the unduly formalised administrative offence reports are provided for consideration, or the materials provided are not complete, the comis in most cases hold principle position and deliver rulings to return the case to an au­ thOiity or ofticial who has drawn up the report and to terminate the proceedings. At the same time, in course of generalisation there were cases of incomplete exami­ nation of all case circumstances by the first instance courts and imposition of the adminis-

tion of Dissemination in the Russian Federation of the Disease Caused by Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV infection) in view of the complaints received from a number of nationals" 51 Article 29 . II §§ I and 2 of the CAO RF 52 Article 3 1.4 §3 of the CAO RF 16 trative punislunent in the form of administrative expulsion without providing the suffi­ cient data and due reasoning which would prove the necessity to apply such a strict liabil­ ity measure to a person and proportionality thereof as the only possible way to reach pub­ lic and private goals within the administrative proceedings. It is also noted that in such cases court decisions were quashed by the higher judicial instances. As the shortcomings related to drawing up the administrative offences reports and the quality of materials submitted to courts were indicated in course of generalisation, the Moscow City Court brought its findings to the attention of the heads of regional divisions of the Federal Migration Service and Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, with a pro­ posal to take measures to eliminate the relevant shortcomings. Monthly meetings (held on the last Wednesday of each month) of judges of district courts and Moscow City Court were planned and are carried out. The participants of such meetings discuss problematic issues arising in course of the consideration of administra­ tive offences, including those related to compliance with stay regime of foreign nationals and stateless persons in the Russian Federation. Representatives of regional divisions of the Federal Migration Service and the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Moscow participate in such meetings. The measures taken by now enabled significant changes in the practice of bringing foreign nationals and stateless persons to the administrative liability and provided the ad­ justed approach to consideration of cases, related to administrative expulsion by Moscow courts, which is proved by statistics. In 2014 approximately 1.9 thousand cases (out of 45.2 thousand cases considered by Moscow courts under Article 18.8 of CAO RF) were returned or the decision to tenninate the proceedings in a case were delivered; more than 4 thousands cases resulted in liability measures not connected with the administrative ex­ pulsion. 5.2.9. In order to ensure proper execution of the decision for administrative expul­ sion in the fonn of forced removal from the tetTitory of the Russian Federation, a foreign national may be placed in a special facility subject to court decision. Federal Law of 06 December 2011 no. 41 O-FZ53 amended CAO RF with a special article regulating the procedure for adopting the relevant decision and placing an individ­ ual in a special facility. The aforementioned Federal Law provides that foreign nationals and stateless per­ sons on whom the administrative expulsion was imposed are placed in a special facility (subject to court decision) by the Federal Bailiff Service of Russia, in concordance with 54 other authorised bodies, as established by the provisions of the CAO RF , federal laws and departmental acts. Order of the Ministry of Justice of Russia of 11 September 2014 no. 191 approved the Procedure of enforcing judicial decisions for placing foreign nationals or stateless per-

53 Federal Law of 06 December 2011 no. 410-FZ On Amendment of Federal Law "On Bailiffs" and Certain Legislative Acts(~( the Russian Federation. 54 Federal Law no 229·FZ of 02 October 2007 On Enforcement Proceedings (as amended on 29 June 201 5, with amendments and additions effective from 0 I October 2015, hereinafter - the Federal Law of 02 October 2007 no. 229-FZ). Federal Law no. 118-FZ of2l July 1997 On Bailiffi (as amended on 08 March 20 15) 17 sons in a special facility by the Bailiffs Service of Russia. This procedure establishes the priority of actions taken by bailiffs, in particular - conveying an individual from court to a special facility and handing him/her over to an authorised employee of such facility. In course of handing an individual over to an authorised employee of the special facility, court judgments and identification documents of a foreign national (if any) are also pro­ vided, which is confirmed with a relevant mark on the second copy of court judgment. The bailiff officer shall immediately inform the relevant subdivision of the Federal Migra­ tion Service and Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Russia about placing an individual subject to expulsion in a special facility. 5.2.10. The procedure of inter-agency cooperation of the authorised bodies in course of enforcing court decisions for the administrative expulsion in the fmm of forced removal from the territory of the Russian Federation is also set forth (see clause 4.2.2. hereof). 5.2.11. Supervision by the prosecution agencies in the area of regulations con­ cerned is an important guarantee of the rights of foreign citizens and stateless persons. • Prosecutor's supervision in this area is performed on the basis of the Federal Law Concerning Public Prosecution Service of the Russian Federation and Order of the General Prosecutor's Office no.195 of 7 December 2007 On Organization of Prosecutor's Supervision over Execution of Laws, Observance of Rights and Freedoms of a Person and Citizen (as amended in the period from February 2012 till July 2015). The abovementioned legal instruments enshrine, inter -alia, that the prosecutors, when performing supervisory functions, shall be governed not only by provisions of the Convention and Russian legislative rules, but also by the generally recognized principles and standards of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation. • By way of implementation of supervisory powers, the General Prosecutor's Office monitored the state of legality in the field of migration. Based on its findings, it pointed out certain violations of the rights of foreign citizens and stateless persons on the part of public authorities, along with some positive trends in this area. These issues, as well as other issues in the field of migration were discussed on 6 August 2014 at the Coordination Meeting of the heads of law-enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation with elaboration of the complex of additional organizational and prac­ tical measures on consolidation of legality in this field. • By way of execution of the decision made by the Coordination Meeting, the 55 General Prosecutor's Office issued order no.342 of 1 July 2015 . According to it, the prosecutors supervising the observance of rights and freedoms of foreign citizens and stateless persons shall pay special attention to the execution of legislation in the field of migration (in activity oftenitorial subdivisions of the Federal Migration Service of Russia and other regulatory bodies and law-enforcement agencies, inter alia, when applying ar-

5~ Order of th e General Prosecutor's Office no.342 of I July 20 15 On Introduction of Changes in Order of the Prosecmor General of the Russian Federation no. 195 of7 December 2007 On Organization of Prosecutor's Supervision over Execution ofLaw s, Observance ofRi ghts and Freedoms ofa Person and Citizen. 18 rest in relation to citizens and other administrative sanctions and safeguards for the rights of the relevant citizens). • The General Prosecutor's Office issued also Order no.343 of 1 July 2015 On Organization of Prosecutor's Supervision over Execution of Legislation in the Field of Migration. In this order the prosecutors are prescribed to view the legality safeguards in the field of migration as one of core areas of supervisory activities and to do so on a regu­ lar basis in cooperation with public authorities, local authorities, law-enforcement agen­ cies, supervisoty bodies and civic institutions. The prosecutors are also obliged to ensure the effectiveness of organization and ef­ ficiency of supervision over execution of laws in this area and proper state of legal ity in the field of migration, to pay special attention to the facts of violation of rights and free­ doms of a person and citizen and to resolutely stop any abuse in relation to foreign citi­ zens (stateless persons) staying in Russia. At the same time, it is prescribed to arrange monitoring over the state of legality in the field of migration on the basis of statistical data, as well as other infonnation, includ­ ing publications in mass media, appeals from citizens, supervisory bodies and public or­ ganizations. It was pointed out that the prosecutors were obliged to immediately arrange inspec­ tions in case of any infotmation on violation of law requiring urgent interference of the prosecution agencies, and in case of any violations found - to take necessary measures for bringing the guilty persons to liability as established by law, and to successively and per­ sistently seek for real elimination of the violations revealed. • In October 20 15 the General Prosecutor' Office prepared the Methodological Recommendations on organization of prosecutor's supervision in the field of legal regula­ tions concerned, which are published on the official website of this agency. 6. As regards the appeals against decisions on administrative expulsion by way of supervisory review and placement of foreign citizens and stateless persons in spe­ cial facilities, it is reiterated that Russian law clearly regulates the procedure for such appeals. A foreign citizen or a stateless person, in whose relation the proceedings in the case on administrative expulsion are pending, is entitled to appeal against the decision, which has not yet become final in the case on administrative offence within 10 days from the 6 date of delivery or receipt of the copy of the decision5 • In case the established time-limit for lodging the relevant appeal is missed, it may be restored by a judge upon the request 7 of a person lodging the appeal 5 • A foreign citizen or a stateless person is entitled to lodge an appeal against the deci­ sions which became final in a case on administrative offence, including those regarding administrative expulsion and placement in special facilities. During the period being under examination of the European Court, the possibility of such appeal was provided for in accordance with the legal meaning of Article 30.11 of the

56 Articles 25. 1 and 30.1 of the CAO RF. s7 Article 30.3 §2 of the CAO RF. 19 CAO RF established in rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation no. 159-0 of 22 April 2004 and no.145-0 of 12 May 2005, and in accordance with direc­ tions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. Later the amendments were introduced into the CAO RF,58 and at present Arti­ cle 30.12 of the CAO RF is in force. It directly defines the rights of the person, in whose relation the proceedings on administrative offence is (was) pending, to appeal against final court decisions issued in the case on administrative offence, by way of supervisory re­ vtew. Final decisions on administrative expulsion of foreign citizens and stateless persons and their placement in special facilities, as well as those which have not yet become final, 59 may be appealed against by the prosecutor . At the same time, the prosecutor may lodge an appeal on his own initiative, as well as upon examination of a complaint filed by the applicant believes his rights have been violated. The procedure for appeal against decisions, which have not become final, is regu­ 60 lated in details by the CAO RF • Plenary Resolution no.40 of 19 December 2013 pro­ vides additional explanations regarding the territorial jurisdiction applied to appeal peti­ tions in cases on administrative offences, along with the grounds and procedure for resto­ ration of limitation periods for the appeals missed for good reasons, and the possibility to appeal against the rulings dismissing the motions on restoration of the missed limitation period. Plenary Resolution no. 5 of 24 March 2005 (as amended in the period from 2008 till 2013), as well as the abovementioned resolutions and rulings of the Constitutional 61 Court , contain direct instructions stating that courts should ensure individual and objec­ tive approach to examination of all circumstances in cases on administrative offences at all stages of the proceedings, including the appeal stage, and apply or uphold the adminis­ trative restraint measures in the form of administrative expulsion only in cases of real need for such sanction and its proportionality to the aim pursued and certain circumstanc­ es with provision of the motives of the judgment delivered. 7. On 8 March 2015 Federal Law no. 21-FZ Code of Administrative Court Procedure of the Russian Federation was adopted ("Code of Administrative Court Procedure RF") together with some laws on introduction of changes into certain legal acts in connection

58 Federal Law no.240-FZ of 3 December 2008 (as amended on 4 June 2014) On Introduction of Amendments into the Code on Administrative Offences. 59 Articles 30.10, 30.12 of the CAO RF. 60 Article 30 of the CAO RF. 61 Se, for example, Resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federc1tion no. J 1-TI of 15 May 1999, no. l-IT of 17 January 2013, no.4-IT of 14 February 2013, no.8-TI of 14 February 2013, no.4-TI of 12 March 2015, ruling no.628-0 of 5 March 2014. 20 62 63 with its adoption (Federal Laws no.22-FZ of8 March 2015 and 23-FZ , Federal Consti­ 64 tutional Law no. 1-FKZ of8 March 2015 ). The abovementioned laws provide for creation of the significantly improved preven­ tive national judicial remedy, including also in the area of regulations concerned. The nom1s of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of the Russian Federation allow foreign citizens and stateless persons, inter alia, to appeal before court under the new procedures against actions (omissions) of public authmities, other state bodies and agencies vested with public powers, and their officials in the field of migration relations and relations connected with them. Procedures stipulated by the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Fed­ eration fu lly correspond to the international standards and recommendations of the Euro­ pean Court. More detailed information about this Code was provided by Russian authori­ ties to CMCE in the action plan on enforcement of the 'pilot' judgment in Ananyev and others v. Russia. 8. As it was previously reported, the judgment on application Georgia against Rus­ sia (!) was forwarded to the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court, as well as to other competent state authorities to be used in practice and to take measures for prevention of violations revealed by the ECHR within the jurisdiction. The competent public authorities forwarded the copy of the judgment of the European Court to structural subdivisions and territorial bodies with the necessary instructions on taking notice of the legal views of the European Court. Information about the judgment of the European Court in the Russian language is published in the reference legal systems "Garant" and "ConsultantPlus", as well as on the official website of the Russian Ministry of Justice. The text of the judgment is published in the Russian language on the official website of the General Prosecutor's Office, as well as on the internal website of the Supreme Court which is accessible to all judges. All state bodies conducted a substantive study of legal views of the European Court expressed in this judgment.

Thus, current Russian law and enforcement practice with regard to measures taken, implemented and planned on their reforming, provide for sufficient safeguards against the use of administrative practices, inter alia, in relation to citizens of Georgia, and for migra­ tion policy in accordance with international standards and provisions of the Convention. Statistics clearly shows the standart approach (under the existing mechanisms im­ proved), used in relation to the citizens of Georgia staying in the Russian Federation, in­ cluding those who have violated Russian laws. For example, the number of Georgian nationals who entered Russia in 20 t 4 exceeded the number of Georgian nationals who left this country during the same

62 Federal law no. 22-FZ of 8 March 20 l5 On Enactment of the Code ofAdministrative Court Procedure of the Russian Fed­ eration. 63 Federal law no.23 -FZ of 8 March 2015 On Introduction of Changes into Certain Legal Acts of the Russian Federation, in view of Enactment ofthe Code ofAdministrative Court Procedure ofth e Russian Federation. 64 Federal Constitutional Law no. 1-FKZ of 8 March 2015 On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Com­ missioner for Human Rights ofthe Russian Federation" and the Federal Constiwtiona/ Law "On the Russian Federation Mili­ tary Courts" due to Enactment ofthe Code ofAdministrath •e Court Procedure ofthe Russian Federation. 21 period (32.3 thousand v. 28.2 thousand). At that, the number of Georgian nationals who left Russia made 0.2% of the total number of foreign citizens who left Russia during that period. As concerns the year of 2014, 3.1 thousand Georgian nationals were brought to administrative liability for violation of the rules of stay in Russia, 183 Georgian nationals - for labour activity without permit, which made, respectively, 1.5% and 0.2% of the total number of foreign citizens brought to administrative liability. 1.1 thousand Georgian na­ tionals were expelled under court decisions in 20 14, which made 3. 9% of the total number of the expelled foreign citizens. The effectiveness of measures taken by the Russian authorities is also confi1med by the examples from the cutTently existing law-enforcement practice, inter alia, the judicial one. Some illustrative examples from the judicial practice are provided in the attached in­ foimation note (Appendix no. 1). Following the events which became the subject for examination by the European Court, the actions of Russian authorities were not assessed by ECHR as manifestation of the administrative practice. Neither the judgment on application Georgia v. Russia (1) is­ sued in June 2013, nor any other judgments of the European Court in cases against Russia contain any evidence of the fact that such violations took place on the part of the Russian Government after January 2007. In view of the foregoing, the Russian authorities believe that the measures taken al­ lowed to prevent fiuther violations regarded by the European Court as administrative practice.

Ill.JI. Measures for ensuring proper conditions in special facili­ ties and temporary detention facilities

65 I. Since 1 April 2014, based on Federal Law no.388-FZ of 28 December 2013 , special facilities were transferred from jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia to jurisdiction of the Federal Migration Service of Russia. 2. Federal Law of21 July 2014 no. 232-FZ66 added a special chapter, ''Detention of a Foreign National in a Special Facility", to Federal Law of 25 July 2002 no. 115-FZ. Provisions of that chapter detennine the foundations and fundamental principles of deten­ tion of foreign citizens in special facilities. It is, in pa1ticular, stipulated, that detention of foreign citizens in special facilities is possible only on conditions and in accordance with the procedure dete1mined by law, inter alia, for the purposes of enforcement of court decisions regarding imposition of ad­ ministrative penalty in the form of compulsory deportation. At that, as it was stated in de­ tail above, (paragraph 5.2.4 of the present document), the decision on placement of a for-

65 Federal Law no.388-FZ of28 December 2013 On Introduction of Changes into Federal Law On Police and Certain Legal Acts of the Russian Federation to the Extent of Specification of Terms for Transf er of Powers on Detention of Foreign Citi­ zens and Stateless persons, Subject to Administrative Expulsion from the Russian Federation or Deportation ("the Federal Law no.388-FZ of28 December 20 13"). 66 Federal law no.232-FZ of21 July 2014 On Introduction ofChanges into Certain Legal Acts of the Russian Federation to the Extent of Improvement of Legislation of the Russian Federation, Concerning Special Facilities in the Field of Migration (as amended on 8 March 2015). 22 eign citizen in a special facility for the purposes of administrative expulsion shall be exe­ cuted only under court decision. Among the principles of detention of foreign nationals and stateless persons in special facilities there are legality, humanism, respect for human dignity, personal securi­ ty, protection of public health; At the same time it is enshrined that no discrimination of persons kept in a special facility on grounds of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, convictions, membership in public associations or other circumstances shall be allowed. It is also envisaged that the issues of primary health care in special facilities and protection of such facilities (in order to ensure the safety of foreign citizens) shall be solved in accordance with the procedure established by the Government of the Russian Federation: the requirements as to design, technical infrastructure and equipment of spe­ cial facilities shall be established by the federal authority in the fi eld of migration. A new chapter of the aforementioned law enshrines also the rights and obligations of foreign nationals detained in special faci lities, as well as the procedure for their person­ al examination and inspection of things and objects held by them. 3. Some necessary legal acts were adopted in furtherance of the said legislative changes in the Russian legislation: 3.1. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation no.l306 of 30 December 201367 (as amended on 30 December 2014) determined the Rules for deten­ tion (staying) in special facilities of the Federal Migration Service or its territorial body of foreign citizens (stateless persons), subject to administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation in the form of compulsory deportation from the Russian Federation, deporta­ tion or readmission ("the Rules for Detention in Special Facilities"). The above rules regulate in detail the procedure for admission and detention of fo reign nationals, requirements as to the relevant detention, organization of welfare sup­ port, health service suppo11 and provision with preparations for medical use. The separate section of the Rules enshrines the rights and obligations of citizens, inter alia, to obtain information on their rights and responsibilities, mode of detention, procedures for filing applications and complaints, to personal security and proper condi­ tions of detention, etc. In particular, it establishes the following: • minimum standards for sanitary areas (at least 6 m2 per person, at installation 2 2 of bunk beds- at least 4.5 m per person, at placement of a family- at least 15 m ); • provision of each person with individual berth and a full set of bedding;

61 Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation no.l306 of 30 December 2013 (as amcndt!d on 30 December 2014) On Approval of Rules for Detention (Staying) in special facilities of the Federal Migration Service or its territorial body offoreig n citizens and stateless persons, subject to administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation in the form of compulsory deportation [rom the Russian Federation, deportation or readmission ("the Government Resolution no.l 306 of30 December 20 13"). 23 • procedure for separate detention of male and female ' as well as the opportunity of joint detention of family members: spouses, children, parents, etc.; • organization of health care, as well as: - detention in specially equipped premises (infectious centers) of persons who have symptoms of an infectious disease, until they are placed in a specialized medi­ cal institution; - provision with medicines; - medical workers and psychologists in the staffing table of special institutions; - inspection of incoming foreign nationals in order to ensure the safety of the persons and others, etc. 3.2. On 8 April 2013 Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation no. 3 1068 approved the Requirements for buildings and facilities transfened to the Office of the Federal Migration Service of Russia, to allocate there special facilities. This act contains, inter al ia, the list of mandatory premises of special facilities and technical requirements applicable to them (equipped with an isolated bathroom premise for detention of foreign nationals, facilities for the reception, preparation (warm-up) of food and catering, administrative and housekeeping space, staff room, medical depart­ ment, infectious center, if possible - gym and other facilities,). 3.3. Order of the Federal Migration Service of Russia no. 534 of 26 September 201469approved the Standard Requirements for the design, technical equip­ ping and equipment of special facilities. The order contains, inter alia, the requirements to the building layout, its equip­ ment area, exercise yards, filling of door and window openings, along with civil and struc­ tural requirements, requirements for engineering equipment, heating, ventilation, electrici­ ty, equipping of the territory, security and fire safety. 3.4. Order of the Federal Migration Service of Russia no. 532 of 26 September 201470 approved the forms of acts of personal search and seizure of items of a foreign citizen or an stateless person who has been placed in special facility. When fill-

68 Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation no.31 0 of 8 April 2013 (as amended on 7 May 20 14) On Approval of Requirements for Buildings with Adjacent Lands, Tra11Sferred by the Russian Federation Constiwents for the purposes of Allocation ofSpecial Facilities ofthe Federal Migration Service for Detention of Foreign Citizens and Stateless persons, sub­ ject to Administrative Expulsion from the Russian Federation in the form ofCompulsory Deportation from the Russian Feder­ ation, Deportation or Readmission 69 Order of the Federal Migration Service of Russia no. 534 of 26 September 201 4 On Approval ofthe Standard Requiremenls for the Design, Technical equipping and Equipment ofSp ecial Facilities of the Federal Migration Service and its Territorial Bodies, Intended for Detention of Foreign Nationals and Stateless persons subject to Administrative Expulsion from the Rus­ sian Federation, Deportation or Readmission (Registered by the Russian Ministry of Justice on 10 November 2014 under number 3462 1) 70 Order of the Federal Migration Service of Russia no. 532 of 26 September 201 4 (as amended on 28 September 2015) On Approval of Forms of Documents Used at Personal Search of Foreign Citizen\· and Stateless persons Placed into Special Facilities Intendedfor Detention of Foreign Citizens and Stateless persons subject to Administrative Expulsion from the Rus­ sian Federation, Deportation or Readmission, Examination of Things and Items Held by the Said Foreign Citizens and State­ less persons, as well as the List of Dangerous Substances and Items Prohibited for Storing by Foreign Citizens and Stateless persons Detained in Special Facilities (Registered by the Russian Ministry of Justice on 07 October 2014 under number 34593) 24 ing in the relevant form, it is necessary to specify the following: complete data of a person conducting personal search or seizure, as well as the presence of attesting witnesses, the results of personal search and seizure, the inventory of seized items, statements of a for­ eign citizen. The appropriate forms require compulsory signing of acts drawn up by the official conducting personal search or seizure, as well as by attesting witnesses and by a foreign citizen himself (stateless person). The aforementioned order approved also the list of dangerous substances and items prohibited for storing by foreign citizens and stateless persons placed in special fa­ cilities. 3.5. On 19 February 2014 the Federal Migration Service of Russia issued Order no. 100 On Approval of the Approximate (Standard) Daily Schedule for Special Facilities of the Federal Migration Service, Intended for Detention (Staying) of Foreign Citizens and Stateless persons subject to Administrative Expulsion from the Russian Federation, Deportation or Readmission to be followed in approving the internal regulations of ce1tain special facilities. 4. As it was mentioned above (paragraph 7, Section Ill. I of the present document), the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of the Russian Federation, which entered into force in 2015, provides for the opportunity to lodge appeals to the court against actions (failure to act) and decisions of any state authorities and their officials, public and munici­ pal officials. Thus, the norms of the said Code allow foreign citizens and stateless persons de­ tained in special facilities to resort to the effective remedy in the case of failure to provide them proper conditions of detention. In case of infliction of harm to a foreign citizen in the result of unlawful actions (failure to act) and decisions of the state authorities and their officials, state and municipal officials, he has the right to apply to the coUit in accordance with Articles 16, 1069 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. 5. Prosecutor's supervision is an important guarantee of respect for the rights of citizens in special facilities. • As noted above, in accordance with the instructions of the General Prosecu- tor's Office, the issues of compliance with law at keeping of foreign citizens and stateless persons in special facilities are under special control of the prosecution agencies of the Russian Federation. According to the General Prosecutor's Office, during the period from January 2014 to May 2015 (the period during which the General Prosecutor's Office had summarised the practice of prosecutor's supervision) the prosecutors conducted a number of inspections in special facilities in some constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Following the results thereof, 170 acts of prosecutor's response were introduced for elimi­ nation and prevention of the revealed violations in future. Upon examination of these acts, more than 130 guilty officials were brought to disciplinary and administrative liability, many of the revealed violations were eliminated, and the rest are under elimination. 25 • By Order of the General Prosecutor's Office no. 342 of 1 July 2015, the obli- gation was imposed on the prosecutors to systematically, at least once in a month, carry out inspections of execution of laws at detention in special facilities. • In October 2015 the General Prosecutor's Office prepared Guidelines On Or- ganization of Prosecutor's Supervision over the Execution of Laws at Detention in Special Facilities of the Federal Migration Service of Russia of Certain Categories of Foreign Cit­ izens and Stateless persons. The above Guidelines contain the review of laws and other normative legal acts regulating the issues subject to supervision in this field of relations, as well as detailed guideli nes on the procedure for the exercise of supervisory powers over the execution of legislation when delivering and placing foreign citizens in special facilities and their de­ tention in them. It is expected that the above Guidelines will significantly increase the effective­ ness of prosecutor's supervision. 6. Federal Law no. 76-FZ of6 April 201471 introduced amendments to the Federal Law no. 115-FZ of 25 July 2002 relating to the powers of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation. In particular, it was enshrined that the Commissioner, acting in the manner pre­ scribed by law, shall facilitate restoration of the violated rights of foreign citizens, as well as improvement of the Russian legislation defining the legal status of foreign citizens. It is also established that the Commissioner has the right (inter alia, when examin­ ing complaints received from foreign citizens) to attend special facilities and talk in pri­ vate to persons detained there in conditions allowing the representative of the administra­ tion to see the talkers but not to hear them. 7. The practice has been established for visiting special facilities by Human Rights Commissioners in the Russian Federation constituents. In 2014 - 2015 such visits took place, for example, in Saint Petersburg, the Kamchatka Ten·itory and other regions. The results of the said visits were widely reported by mass media, where the rele­ vant Commissioners, together with separate defects, noted significant progress in ensuring proper conditions of detention of foreign citizens and stateless persons in special facilities. 8. Federal Law no.76-FZ of 10 June 2008 On Public Control over Ensuring of Human Rights in Detention Facilities and Assistance to Persons Kept in Detention Facili­ ties ("Federal Law no.76-FZ") entered into force on 1 September 2008. The said law established the legal basis for participation of public associations in the public control over ensuring of human rights in detention facilities, assistance to persons kept in detention facilities.

71 Federal Law no. 76-FZ of 6 April 2015 On Introduction ofAmendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federa­ tion for the Purposes ofImprovem ent ofActivities of the Human Rights Commissioners. 26 Federal Law no.l4-FZ of 12 February 201572 introduced changes into Federal Law no.76-FZ, according to which special facilities fall under the sphere of relevant public control. Thus, at present the observance of rights of foreign citizens (stateless persons) kept in special facilities is under constant control of the members of public monitoring com­ missions ("the PMC"), as evidenced by regular visits by PMC members to the relevant in­ stitutions, including those in the cities of Moscow and Saint Petersburg (regions, where the ECHR found major share of violations relating to the failure to ensure proper deten­ tion conditions). For example, a special facility in Moscow was lately repeatedly visited by the repre­ sentative of PMC, inter alia, together with representatives of the Presidential Council of the Russian Federation for Civil Society Development and Human Rights. A special facil­ ity in Saint Petersburg was also repeatedly visited this year by the representatives ofPMC. The results of the visits pointed to improvement of the situation and defined the remaining issues, which are not the focus area for administrations of special facilities and bodies of the Federal Migration Service of Russia (information on the relevant visits is published in the mass media). 9. A number of measures were also taken to ensure proper conditions in temporary detention facilities ("IVS .. ) for foreign citizens (stateless persons) who are subject to ad­ ministrative expulsion. Attention is paid to minimum current practice of placing the arrested foreign citizens in IYS before examination by the court of the issue on bringing them to administrative re­ sponsibility. However, the Russian Govemment takes general measures on ensuring prop­ er conditions of detention in IVS. In 2014 33 new IVS were built and put into operation and 198 existing IVS were re­ paired. At present this work continues under realization of the Concept of development of temporary detention facilities for the suspects and the accused, and special reception cen­ ters for detention of persons subject to administrative arrest, territorial bodies of the Min­ istry of Internal Affairs of Russia for 2015-2020. The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia issued Order no.876 of 28 July 2011 On Special Technical Requirements for Engineering and Technical Protection of Temporary Detention Facilities of Internal Affairs Bodies. By Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation no.301 of 16 April 2012, the Regulations on the Conditions of Detention, Food Standards and Pro­ cedures of Health Care to the Arrested Persons in Territorial Bodies of the Ministry of In­ ternal Affairs of the Russian Federation were approved. The relevant work continues within the scope of judgments in the group of cases Fe­ dotov.

72 Federal Law no.14-FZ of 12 February 2015 On Introduction a/Changes into Article 2 of the Federal Law On Public Con­ trol over Ensuring ofHuman Rights in Detention Facilities and Assistance to Persons Kept in Detention Facilities. DG 1 1 7 DEC. 2015 Information note SERVICE DE L'EXECUTION on certain representative examples of balanced approach tal

On 11 September 2014, Moscow City Court judgement changed the decision of Chertanovsiy District Court of Moscow on administrative expulsion of a national of Republic of Uzbekistan S. by excluding administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation. It is noted that this administrative penalty measure cannot be recognized as legitimate, since the first instance court has not taken into account that S. had an infant son and wife who are the nationals of Russia. It is noted that the first instance court has not justified proportionality of using administrative punishment in the form of expulsion from Russia as the only possible way to achieve a balance between public and private interests. On 14 December 2011, Moscow City Court judgement changed the decision of the judge of Zamoskvoreckiy District Court of Moscow in the case of an administrative liability under Article 18.8 § l of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation ("CAO RF") against a national of Nigeria 0. - it excluded imposition of administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation to 0. and immediately released 0 . from a special centre of Moscow, since, as noted by the court, such long restriction of the 0. right to communicate with daughter and to participate in her upbringing did not correspond to the proportionality of public and private interests of the administrative proceedings, as well as to principle of non-intervention by a public authority in the exercise by person the rights to respect his private and family life. By its decision of 8 April 2014, the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against S., a national of the Republic of Georgia, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of the absence of any documents confirming her ri ght to stay in Russia. The court found that S. had lost these documents while being attacked, that she had fi led a respective application with the law-enforcement authmities, and, therefore, there was no administrative corpus delicti in her actions. At the same time the court noted that the information mentioned in the administrative offence report was not consistent with the actual circumstances of the case. On 1 November 2010 the Supreme Court resolution changed decision of the Baykitskiy district cou11 of Krasnoyarsk region and Krasnoyarsk region Court and in the case of prosecution of I, the Uzbekistan national, under Art. 18.8 of the CAO RF for violating the order of foreign national registration procedures in Russia. The court held that it would be a disproportionate interference with the right to family life of the applicant, his wife and child, who are nationals of the Russian Federation. By its decision of 22 May 2014, the Tagansky District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against N., a national of Ukraine, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of his avoidance of leaving Russia upon the expiration of prescribed period. The comt held that in fact N. was lawfully staying in Russia as his stay period had been extended by his patent for conduction professional activity. 2

On 19 November 2013, St. Petersburg City Court's resolution quashed and remitted for fresh examination the decision of the Moskovskiy District Court of St. Petersburg dated 1 November 2013 on administrative expulsion of the Nigeria national E.B. and her placement in a special centre. The court took into account that the protocol of administrative detention ofE.B. had significant drawbacks, namely, the lack of knowledge of language which person could speak and from which the translation was made during preparation of the protocol, as well as the lack of information about her acquaintance with the changes made to the protocol, which is a violation of the right to defence. By its ruling of 2 October 2013, the Tverskoy District Court remitted the administrative offence report against K., a national of the Republic of Georgia, who was charged with the avoidance of leaving Russia, to the head of the department of the UFMS of Russia for rectification of the violations found. The court noted that the case file contained no evidence that could be used as factual information to establish corpus delicti and evidence of an offence, to find the person guilty. It also was taken into account that the absence of such evidence was a significant and substantial violation preventing the court from thorough, full and impartial examination of the case. By its decision of 1 October 2013, the Lefortovo District Court terminated the administrative proceedings against A., a national of the Kyrgyz Republic, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the presence in the Russian Federation regulations. The cou1t found no offence in this case as according to the case fi le A. was staying in Russia lawfully since his temporary stay in Russia had been extended by issuance of a patent confirming his right to conduct professional activity. Resolution of the St. Petersburg City Court of 5 February 2014 under the supervisory review procedure quashed the decision of Krasnoselsky District Court of St. Petersburg of 6 October 2013 on administrative expulsion of a national of the Republic of Cameroon, M. and her placement in an special centre due to the fact that she did not leave the tetTitory of Russia after the deadline of legal residence. The Court found that the presence of M. in Russia without the necessary documents did not depend on her since she was kept in an special centre for the purpose of expulsion, which had not been carried out by public authorities. According to the results of administrative proceedings discontinued M. and M. immediately released from institutions. On 14 November 2014 the Kirovsk District Court of Ufa of the Republic of Bashkortosta n brought D.S., a national of the Republic of Turkey, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1. of the CAO RF for his failure to leave the country upon expiration of visa, which had been received under the prescribed procedure, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion on him. The court took into account that D.S. is married to a Russian national with two children who are permanently residing in Russia, and that he was planning to leave the country for the Republic of Turkey voluntarily in order to prepare the documents for further legal entering Russia and applying for residence permit in the country. By its decision of 17 July 2014, the Izmaylovskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against M., a national of Ukraine, under Article 18.10 § 2 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching labour law. The court held that the 3 materials available were not sufficient to find M. guilty, as the only photo of M. in a restaurant could not lead to the conclusion that he had been working as a waitress there. Resolution of the St. Petersburg City Court of 29 July 2013 by supervisory review cancelled and forward for a new trial, ruling of the Kuibyshev district court of St. Petersburg on October 19, 2012 on administrative expulsion of a national of the Republic of Nigeria D. and her placement in institution. The Court found that the existing contradictions in respect to the identity of D. don't allow the imposition of lawful and justified decision in the case. As a result of the revision of D.'s supervisory appeal is subject to satisfaction and D. is to be release from a special centre immediately. On 6 March 2013, Deputy Chairman of the Moscow City Court judgement by supervisory review changed Perovskiy Dictrict Court of Moscow judgement and the Moscow City Court decision on administrative expulsion of Republic of Azerbaijan national M. by exception of appointment indication of additional administrative penalty in the form of administrative expulsion abroad Russian Federation. It is noted that the first instance court while considering the appealed decision had not took into account marital status of M., namely the existence of a dependent minor child, who is the national of Russia. By its judgement of 1 September 2011, the Basmanny District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against A., a national of Nigeria, under Article 18.8 § l of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia as A.O. had not registered himself with the migration authorities. The court held that A.O. had complied with all the requirements of Russian Law and noted that A.O. was holding a passport of Nigeria, multi-entry visa, registration, and that he was studying in a university. On 6 December 2012, the Moscow City Court resolution by supervisory review changed Kuzminskiy Dictrict Court of Moscow decision of 7 August 2012 and Moskovsky City Court decision from 6 September 2012 on administrative expulsion of Republic of Uzbekistan national K. abroad Russian Federation. It was noted that the courts did not examine the question of the presence of K.'s family related infants, which is legally significant for the case proper consideration. On 15 September 2011, St. Petersburg City Court's resolution cancelled and remitted for a new consideration the judgement of the Vyborgskiy District Comi of St. Petersburg dated 26 July 2010 on administrative expulsion of a national of the Republic of Azerbaijan G. and his placement in a special centre. The court took into account that case­ file contains no information about clarifying to the foreign national the right to be granted with the services of an interpreter, the records on behalf of G. do not contain unique information about his rejection of interpreter services and there is no sign of the foreign national, and the date of compiling receipt. In addition, the official document certifying the identity of G. drawn up on behalf of the chief of police depatiment signed by another person without specifying the position and authority to certify this document. As a result of the revision G. was released from the special institution. On 19 December 2014, Deputy Chairman of the Moscow City Court resolution by way of supervisory review changed the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow decision on administrative expulsion of Z., the Republic of Moldova national, by exception of appointment indication of additional administrative penalty in the form of self-controlled 4 administrative expulsion abroad Russian Federation. The court took into account that the first instance court had not considered the marital status of a foreign national - the presence of his wife and children are nationals of Russia. On 30 December 2008, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation resolution changed the decision in the case of prosecutions under Art. 18.8 of the CAO RF for non­ foreign national registration procedures in Russia - an indication of the possible appointment of an additional punishment as a court when deciding on administrative deportation from the Russian Federation does not take into account that to prosecute a person is married to a Russian national. By its decision of 24 October 2014, the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against A., a national of the Kyrgyz Republic, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of the avoidance of leaving the country upon the expiration of prescribed period of stay in Russia. The court found the absence of evidence of an offence as on the date of the administrative offence report made A. held a patent confirming her right to conduct professional activity, and the validity of this patent had been extended in accordance with law. By its ruling of 2 October 2014, the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow remitted the administrative case file against P.K., a national of the Republic of Georgia, to the department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia ("MVD of Russia") due to the incompleteness of case file. The court noted that in fact P.K.was not speaking Russian, and that there was no translation of her passport submitted, therefore, it was not possible to establish the identity of the national of the Republic of Georgia or question her in the absence of an interpreter. By its decision of 9 June 2014, the Khamovoicbeskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against U., a national of Azerbaijan, under Article 18.10 § 2 of the CAO RF on the charges of conducting professional activity in the Russian Federation without a relevant work permit or patent. The court took into account the evidence submitted by U. to confirm his right to conduct professional activity. On 11 June 2014 the Novgorod Regional Court changed the decision of the Okulovsk District Court of the Novgorod Region of ll September 2013 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion ofV.V., a national of the Ukraine. The court noted that when delivering the above decision, the trial court did not take into account that V.V. has a wife and minor daughters of Russian nationality. On 15 April 2014 the Court of the Jewish Autonomous Region changed the decision of the Birobidzhan District Court of the Jewish Autonomous Region of 2 April 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of A.A. V ., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, from the Russian Federation, by way of contro11ed voluntarily departure. The court noted that when delivering the above decision, the trial court had not taken into account that A.A.V.'s mother and sisters, the Russian nationals, are living in Russia, and that A.A.V. is in infonnal marriage with a Russian national who is pregnant. On 16 April 2013, by its resolution the St. Petersburg City Court cancelled the decision of the Kalininskiy District Court of St. Petersburg dated 3 April 20 13 on administrative expulsion of the Nigeria national E.V. and her placement in an special institution to deportation with the direction of the case for a new trial. The Court found 5 that the case-files contains no information about her mother tongue (or the language she chose) E.V at the stage of drawing up the protocol and proceedings the case in first instance court, as well as the English language knowledge of E. V. and the person who performed out the translation, on which actually perfonns the translation. Herewith, protocol contains no information on interpreter identity documents and about clarification to him during the preparation of the protocol and during the proceedings in the court the possibility of prosecution for deliberately false interpretation. On 15 October 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation changed the decision of the Kalininskiy District Court of Saint Petersburg of 19 September 2013 and the decision of Saint Petersburg City Court of 23 May 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of S.I., a national of Ukraine, from the Russian Federation. The Comt noted that when delivering the above decisions, the courts had not taken into account that S. I.'s wife and sister, the Russian nationals, live in Russia. By its ruling of 10 February 2012, the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow remitted the administrative offence report under Article 18.10 § 1 of the COA RF and other materials against S.A., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, to the Moscow department of the UFMS of Russia. S.A. was charged with the absence of any documents confirming his right to stay in Russia and with the absence of any documents authorising him to conduct professional activity in Russia. The court noted that the case file contained no identification document of S.A., and for which reason it was needed to establish his identity first and to prepare the administrative offence report. The court also dismissed the request for placing a person1 who had introduced himself as S.A., to a detention centre for foreigners, as the violations found prevented the comt from examining the case file and ordering the administrative expulsion. By its ruling of 16 October 2014, the Troitsky District Court of Moscow remitted the administrative offence report under Article 18.10 § 2 of the COA RF and other materials against A.A., a national of the Republic of Armenia, who was charged with conducting professional activity in violation of migration regulations, to the Moscow department of the UFMS of Russia for rectification of the violations found. The court noted that the authorities of the FMS of Russia failed to submit a photo table confirming professional activity of the foreign national, and also failed to submit any documents confirming his employment in the company. On 18 July 2013, the resolution of St. Petersburg City Court quashed and remitted for a new examination the judgement of the Frunzenskiy District Court of St. Petersburg of 30 May 2013 on administrative expulsion of the Annenian national Ab. from the territory of the Russia and his placement in a special centre. It has been established that the first instance court had not investigated the circumstances of the offence committed by Ab. It is also noted that, based on the case-file, a foreign national's detention was a result of an unscheduled inspections of foreign nationals' place of stay. However, during the proceedings, the first instance court has neither tested the foundatJon and legitimacy of this inspection, nor specified its object. On 4 December 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation changed the decision of the Kolchugino Town Court of the Vladimir Region of 14 January 2014, judgment of the Vladimir Regional Court of 30 January 2014, and the decision of the 6 deputy president of the Vladimir Regional Court of 31 July 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of M.N., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, from the Russian Federation. The Coutt noted that when delivering the above decisions, the courts had not taken into account that M.N.'s wife, a Russian national, and his minor child are living in Russia. On 27 November 2014, St. Petersburg City Court's resolution cancelled and remitted for a new examination the judgement of the Frunzenskiy District Court of St. Petersburg of24 October 2014 on administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation of the Republic of Uzbekistan national Cho. for committing an administrative offence in the form of the work without permission. The court took into account the applicant's arguments that the first instance court did not examine Cho' s duties and did not compare them with his work permit. In this regard, the Court concluded that during examination of Cho's case the first instance court did not ensure comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of all circumstances of the case. On 22 May 2015 the Supreme Court resolution changed judgements of the Khanty - Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug- Yugra of 14 October 2014, 15 January 2015, and decision of 21 November 2014 on administrative responsibility of a foreign national Ch. for use of narcotic drugs without a prescription. Adminitrative expulsion of Ch. Was excluded from decisions since the previous decisions did not take into account his marital status was. By its decision of 3 June 2014, the Savelovsky District Court terminated the administrative proceedings against Ch., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on account of breaching the procedure for entering and leaving the Russian Federation. The court found that in fact Ch. had left Russian in accordance with the procedure prior to the expiration of the prescribed stay period, and then he had entered Russia again, and that there were stamps in his passport confirming that he had crossed the border. The court noted thatCh. did not avoid leaving Russia and complied with his obligations in accordance with relevant Law, and, therefore, there was no evidence of an offence in his actions. On 25 August 2014 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court changed the decision of the Kanavinskiy District Court ofNizhniy Novgorod of 6 August 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of S.K., a national of the Republic of Azerbaijan, from the Russian Federation, by way of controlled voluntarily departure from Russia. The court noted that when delivering the above decision, the trial court had not properly assessed the fact that husband of S.K. has a temporary residence permit in Russia, her parents live in Russia and regularly travel to the Republic of Azerbaijan for the purpose of complying with the migration legislation, and her minor child suffering a serious disease and treated by doctors lives in Russia. By its decision of May 23, 2013, the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against A., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of the avoidance of leaving the country upon the expiration of prescribed period of stay in Russia. The court found the absence of evidence of an offence, which A. was charged with, as he held a 7 patent confirming his right to conduct professional activity, and the validity of this patent had been renewed in accordance with law. On 8 October 2014 the Supreme Court by its judgment changed the decision of the Tomskiy District Comt of the Tomsk Region of 24 October 2013, judgment of the Tomsk Regional Court of 5 November 2013, and decision of the deputy president of the Tomsk Regional Court of 30 April 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion ofK.Kh., a national of the Republic ofUzbekistan, from the Russian Federation. The Court noted that when delivering the above decisions, the courts had not taken into account that Kh.H. is in a family relationship with a Russian national and that they have minor children. By its decision of 24 June 2014, the Mesbchanskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against M., a national of the Republic of the Congo, on account of his failure to present documents confirming his right to stay in the Russian Federation (migration card, visa). The court found that the actions of M . were caused by the necessity of taking treatment and impossibility to extend the required documents. By its decision of 5 February 2014, the Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow tetminated the administrative proceedings against B., a national of the Republic of Moldova, under Article 18.10 § 2 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching labour regulations in the Russian Federation. The court found that the submissions of the representative of the FMS of Russia regarding non-conformity of the B.'s professional activity to the one specified in his work permit were inaccurate and inconsistent with the materials submitted for examination. On 23 December 2014 the Belorechensk District Court of the Krasnodar Region brought K.G., a national of the Kyrgyz Republic, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1. of the CAO RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia (under a visa-free entry procedure) due to her failure to leave the country upon expiration of her stay, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion on her. The court took into account that K.G. is the mother of a Russian national who looks after her because of her old age, and that she lives together with her son at the place of his registration. By its ruling of June 23, 2014, the Dorogomilovskiy District Court remitted to the MVD of Russia the administrative offence report against minor P., a national of the Republic ofTajikistan, who was charged with breaching the stay regulations in Russia, for rectification of the violations found. The court noted that the administrative offence report, which had been prepared by an unauthorized person (who was not a youth liaison officer), and violation of the rights of a minor, prevented the court from examining the case on the merits. By its judgement of May 20, 2014, the Preobrazhenskiy District Court terminated the administrative proceedings against S., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of the avoidance of leaving the country upon the expiration of prescribed period of stay in Russia. The court found the absence of evidence of an offence, which S. was charged with, as he held a patent confirming his right to conduct professional activity, and the validity of this patent had been extended in accordance with law. 8

On 24 January 2014 the Lipctsk Regional Court changed the decision of the Yeletsk District Court of the Lipetsk Region of 17 January 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of Sh.S., a national of the Ukraine, from the Russian Federation. The court noted that when delivering the above decision, the trial court had not taken into account that Sh.M. has been living in Russia for a long time, is in infonnal marriage with a Russian national and has two minor children. On 9 April 2014 the Tver Regional Court changed the decision of the Kimry Town Court of the Tver Region of 21 March 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of K.V., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, from the Russian Federation. The comt noted that when delivering the above decision, the trial court had not properly assessed the fact that K.V.'s parents are Russian nationals and reside in Russia, while K.V. has no family members in the Republic of Uzbekistan. By its decision of January 10, 2014, the Butyrskiy District Court terminated the administrative proceedings against Khu., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of the avoidance of leaving the country upon the expiration of prescribed period of stay in Russia. The court found the absence of the event of the imposed to Khu. law violation, as he held a patent confirming his right to conduct professional activity, and the validity of this patent had been renewed in accordance with law. By its decision of June 24, 2014, the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhny Novgorod brought K.Ye., a national of the Republic of Moldova, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § l.l of the CAO RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of the failure to leave the country upon the expiration of his stay period, and ordered him to a fine without administrative expulsion. The Comt took into account that K.Ye. was married to a national of the Russian Federation and had a minor child. By its ruling of May 23, 2011, the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow remitted to the Moscow department of the UFMS of Russia the administrative offence report under Atticle 18.8 § 1 of the COA RF and other materials against F.Sh., a national of the Republic of Afghanistan, for rectification of the violations found. F.Sh. was charged with breaching the regulations for migration registration. The court noted that the administrative offence report contained no information confirming whether F .Sh. was speaking Russian, and no information confirming that she had been assisted by an interpreter at the time of the administrative offence report preparation. By its ruling of February 16, 2014, the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow remitted to the department of the UFMS of Russia the administrative offence report against B., a national of Ukraine, who was charged with breaching the stay regulations in the Russian Federation, for rectification of the violations found. The court noted that the absence of lD documents with the person at the time of the report preparation, amounted to the hindrance that could not be rectified at the hearing. By its decision of March 4, 2014, the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against K., a national of Ukraine, under Article 18.1 0 § 2 ofthe CAO RF on the charges of breaching labour law. The court held that the materials available were not sufficient to find K. guilty, as the only photo submitted, 9

where ~e was posing in ceremonial attire against the construction site, could not lead to the conclusiOn that he had been working as a construction worker. By its decision of January 17, 2014, the Zaigrayevsky District Court of the Republic of Buryatia brought A.A.M., a national of the Republic of Armenia, to administrative liability under Article 18.9 § 1.1 of the COA RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russian on account of the avoidance of leaving the country upon the expiration of temporary residence permit, obtained by him in due course, and sentenced him to a fine without administrative expulsion. The Court took into account that A. A. M. was married to a Russian national and had a daughter, and that they were living together in Russia. By its decision of October 23, 2013, the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against L., a national of the Republic of Moldova, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of the avoidance of leaving Russia upon the expiration of prescribed stay period. The court found that the administrative offence report against L. had been prepared sooner than 15 days from the date of expiration of his patent confirming his right to conduct professional activity. The court noted that as of the date of the administrative offence report L. was in fact staying lawfully in Russia in accordance with relevant law, and, therefore, there was no administrative corpus delicti in his actions. By its decision of January 9, 2014, the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow brought I., a national of Azerbaijan, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF, for the failure to notify the local authorities of the Moscow Directorate of the UFMS of Russia of her residence at the place of the residence permit receipt. The court ordered her punishment in the form of a fine without administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation. It should be noted that I. was permanently living in Russia and had two children holding Russian nationality. By its decision of September 24, 2013, the Zelenogradskiy District Court of Moscow tem1inated the administrative proceedings against K.I., a national of the Kyrgyz Republic, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of his avoidance of leaving Russia upon the expiration of prescribed period. The court held that K.I. was lawfully staying in Russia (the court noted that she had a passport, migration card and notification form confirming her registration with migration authorities) and that the period of her temporary stay had not yet expired, as prooved by the information note received from the FMS of Russia and statements of K.I. By its decision of November 29, 2013, the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against A., a national of the Kyrgyz Republic, under Atticle 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of A.'s living at the address that was different from the address indicated by her as the place of stay. The court held that A. had complied with all the requirements of Russian law and noted that a non-residential premises, where an inviting company is located, could be indicated as the place of stay. By its decision of November 19, 2014, the Babusbkinskiy District Court of Moscow brought T., a national of Azerbaijan, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 10

§ 3 of the CAO RF for the failure to notify of and confirm his residence in the Russian Federation, and ordered him to a fine without administrative expulsion from Russia. The court took into account that T. was permanently living in Russia with his wife and child, both holding Russian nationality. On 21 March 2014 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia changed the decision of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude of the Republic of Buryatia of 17 March 20 14 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of U.L, a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, from the Russian Federation. The court noted that when delivering the above decision, the trial court had not properly assessed that U.I. is in informal maiTiage and lives together with a Russian national who is pregnant. On 9 June 2014 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court changed the decision of the Nagaybaksk District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region of 4 May 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of I.R., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, from the Russian Federation. The court noted that in the above decision, the trial court had not taken into account that a minor child of I.R. is a Russian national and lives in Russia. By its decision of 26 November 2013, the Preobrazhenskiy District Court terminated the administrative proceedings against G., a national of the Republic of Azerbaijan, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of avoidance of leaving the Russian Federation upon the expiration of prescribed period of stay. The court found no offence in this case because according to the case file G. was staying lawfully in Russia as his temporary stay in Russia had in fact been extended by issuance of a labour patent. By its decision of IS April2014, the Zamoskvorctskiy District Court of Moscow tenninated administrative proceedings against F.Ch., a national of the Republic of Georgia, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of her avoidance of leaving Russia upon expiration of prescribed period of temporary stay. The court noted that F.Ch. had a valid residence permit which allowed her to stay in Russia in accordance with law. On 26 June 2014 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court changed the decision of the Leninskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk of 17 June 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative e>..1Julsion of A.S., a national of the Republic of Armenia, from the Russian Federation. The court noted that when delivering the above decision, the trial court had not taken into account that in Russia A.S. is in informal marriage and lives together with a Russian national, has a minor child, and that he has lost all the ties with the Republic of Armenia where he does not have any close relatives. By its decision of 21 May 2013, the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow tenninated administrative proceedings against N., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, under Article 18.8 § 1 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of his avoidance of leaving Russia upon the expiration of prescribed period. The court held that the period of lawful stay ofN. in Russia had in fact been extended by issuance of a valid labor patent. By its decision of 20 February 2014, the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow brought V., a national of Israel, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF for the avoidance of leaving the country upon the expiration of prescribed period of stay in Russia, and sentenced him to a fine without administrative expulsion 11

from Russia. The court took into account that V. was 1nanied to a national of the Russian Federation and had two minor children permanently living in Russia. By its decision of 23 August 2013, the Ostankinskiy District Court terminated administrative proceedings against K., a national of the Republic of Armenia, under Article 18. 10 § l of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching labour regulations in the Russian Federation. The court found the absence of evidence of an offence as there was no evidence submitted that as of the date of administrative offence report K. conducted any professional activity. By its decision of 18 December 2013, the Chercmushkinskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against Kh., a national of the Republic of Tajikistan, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of his avoidance of leaving Russia upon the expiration of prescribed period. The court held that K.h.M. had complied with all the requirements of Russian law. The court noted that upon the expiration of the period of his temporary stay, Kh.M. had voluntarily left Russia, and then had entered it again and registered himself with the migration authorities as prescribed by law. By its decision of September 9, 2013, the Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against D., a national of the Republic of Tajikistan, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of his avoidance of leaving Russia upon the expiration of prescribed period. The court held that the period of lawful stay of D. in Russia had in fact been extended by issuance of a valid labour patent. On 25 November 2014 the Yakutsk City Court of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) brought Sh.A., a national of Kyrgyz Republic, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § I .1 . of the CAO RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia due to his staying without any documents confirming the lawfulness of his residence, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion from Russia on him. The court took into account that Sh.A. is living in infonnal marriage with a Russian national and has two minor children depending on him. By its decision of 15 December 2014, the Yakutsk City Court of the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic brought A.G., a national of the Republic of Azerbaijan, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1 of the CAO RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of the absence of documents confinning the lawfulness of her stay, and sentenced her to a fine without administrative expulsion. The Court took into account that the husband of A.G. and her two minor children were nationals of Russia. By its decision of 19 April 2011 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against M.Zh., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, under Article 18.8 § 1 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia as M.Zh. had not registered himself with the migration authorities as prescribed by law. The court noted that M.Zh. had been arrested prior to the expiration of the period allowed by law fo r filing a notification about arrival of a foreign national. By its decision of 25 January 2012, the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against Kh.N., a national of the Republic ofUzbek.istan, under Article 18.8 § 1 ofthe CAO RF on the charges of breaching 12 the stay regulations in Russia on account of his avoidance of leaving Russia upon the expiration of prescribed period. The court held that the period of lawful stay of Kh.N. in Russia had in fact been actually extended by issuance of a valid labour patent. By its decision of 23 July 2014 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow terminated administrative proceedings against U.K., a national of the Kyrgyz Republic, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of U.K.'s living at the address that was different from the address indicated by him as the place of his stay. The court held that U.K. had complied with all the requirements of Russian law and noted that a non-residential premises, where an inviting company is located, could be indicated as the place of stay. By its ruling of 30 June 2011, the Zelenogradskiy District Court of Moscow remitted the administrative offence report under Article 18.10 of the CAO RF and other materials against D.I., a national of the Republic of Tajikistan, to the Moscow department of the UFMS of Russia due to their incompleteness. The court noted that the case file contains no identification documents of the person subject to being brought to administrative liability, or any documents that would allow to establish the identity of this person. By its decision of 31 October 2014 the Lefortovo District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against M.D., a national of the Kyrgyz Republic, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of M.D.'s living at the address that was different from the address indicated by him as the place of his stay. The cou11 held that M.D. had complied with all the requirements of Russian law and noted that a non-residential premises, where an inviting company is located, could be indicated as the place of stay. By its decision of 20 August 2014, the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against Kh.Kh., a national of the Kyrgyz Republic, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF on the charges of breaching the stay regulations in Russia on accOlmt of his avoidance of leaving Russia upon the expiration of prescribed period. The court held that the period of lawful stay of Kh.Kh. in Russia had in fact been extended by issuance of a valid patent confim1ing his right to conduct professional activity. By its ruling of 29 March 2012, the Meshchansl<.iy D·istrict Court of Moscow remitted the administrative case file under Article 18.8 § 1 of the COA RF against N.D., a national of the Republic of Tajikistan, to the Moscow department of the UFMS of Russia due to the incompleteness of case file. N.D. was charged with the fa ilure to register himself with the migration authority at his new place of stay after changing it. The court noted that N.D. was speaking poor Russian and had not been provided with the assistance of an interpreter. Moreover, there was information about proper verification by the UFMS authorities of the certificate of migration registration, which had been submitted by N.D. By its decision of 27 August 2014, the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against A.U., a national of the Kyrgyz Republic, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF for the avoidance of leaving the country upon the expiration of the period of stay. The court held that in fact A.I. was lawfully living in 13

Russia as he had a valid patent confirming his right to conduct professional activity. In view of the above, the court held that the actions of A.U. had no evidence of an offence. On 26 August 2014 the Novokubansk District Court of the Krasnodar Region brought P.A., a national of the Republic of Armenia, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1. of the CAO RF for breaching of stay regulations in Russia due to his staying without any documents confirming his right to reside in the country, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion on him. The court took into account that P .A. was living in informal marriage, had a minor child, relatives and place of permanent residence in Russia; it also took into account his intention to register his marriage and to apply for residence in the country under the prescribed procedure. By its ruling of 10 April 2012, the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow terminated administrative proceedings against Ch.B., a national of the Kingdom of Thailand. Ch.B. was charged with the failure to leave Russia upon the expiration of the period of her lawful stay. The court noted that the head of the Moscow department of the UFMS of Russia already sentenced Ch.B. to a fine without administrative expulsion from Russia for the same offence. On 17 April 2014 the Lobnensk Town Court of the Moscow Region brought N.Z., a national of the Kyrgyz Republic, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia due to her failure to apply for a temporary residence permit in the Moscow Region, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion on her. The court took into account that N.Z. is matTied to a Russian national and they live together. By its decision of 15 April 2014, the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against U.E., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF for living at the address that was different from the address indicated as the place of his stay, for the lack of administrative cmpus delicti. The court held that I.E. had arrived in the Russian Federation to work, that he had signed, in due course, a labour contract with the inviting company, and that he had registered himself with the migration authorities at the company's address. On 2 April 2012 the Moscow City Court changed the judge's decision of Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow in the case of administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1 of the CAO RF against a national of Congo B. It excluded the indication of the administrative pW1ishment in the form of administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation and released him from the special centre in of Moscow. The court indicated that the trial court had not taken into account the marital status of a foreign national (the presence of the wife - a Russian national and two dependent children). Thus, the use of additional punishment in respect of B. in the fonn of administrative expulsion would be premature and does not refrain from interfering in applicant's right for family life. By its resolution of 14 July 2011 the St. Petersburg City Court cancelled and remitted for fresh examination the decision of the Petrograd district court of St. Petersburg on March 22, 2011 on administrative expulsion of a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan Kh., who was found guilty of an administrative offence due to the fact that he had no documents proving the right to stay in Russia. The court took into consideration that the Court of First Instance heard the case without proper, full and complete 14 investigation of all the circumstances, in particular, it has not been taken into account that Kh. in the established order was required to stay in the Russian documents, but lost them and presented the relevant certificated. By its resolution of 13 November 2014 the St. Petersburg City Court upon the prosecutors motion cancelled in order of supervision proceedings and remitted to a fresh examination the decision of the Frunze district court of St. Petersburg of 15 June 15 201 4 on administrative expulsion of a national of the Republic of Georgia B. The court found that the case contains contradictions in respect of the identity of B., which prevents imposition of lawful and justified decision in the case. As a result of the revision the prosecutor's motion was granted,. B. was released. By its resolution of 29 September 2011 the St. Petersburg City Court upon the motion of the prosecutor cancelled in order of supervision and remitted to a fresh examination the decision of the Krasnoselsky District Court of St. Petersbw·g of 15 March 201 1 on administrative expulsion of M., a national of Uzbekistan, and his custody in a specialised institution pending expulsion. The Court found that the lack of relevant identification information about M. is a violation that cannot be addressed during examination of the case on the merits. As a result of revision the prosecutors' motion was granted, M. was released from the special centre. On 7 May 2014 the Armavir City Court of the Krasnodar Region brought G.S., a national of Ukraine, to administrative liability under Atticle 18.8 § 1.1. of the CAO RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia (under a visa-fi·ee entry procedure) due to her failure to leave the country upon expiration of her stay, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion on her. The court took into account that G.S. has been living in Russia for a long period, owns a house in Russia, has two adult children who are the Russian nationals and live together with their mother. On 6 March 2014, St. Petersburg City Court judgement cancelled and remitted for fresh examination the decision of the Smolninskiy District Court of St. Petersburg dated 18 May 2014 on administrative expulsion of the Cameroon national S. and her placement in a special institution for deportation. The court took into account that the protocol on admi nistrative offence contained no information about warning the interpreter provided to S. about administrative responsibility for deliberately wrong translation; also no signature of S. was provided to prove that her rights were clarified to her. The protocol also contained an incorrectly specified provision, on the basis of which the person was detained, and the decision of the District Court established S. guilt in violation of migration law, despite the fact that it was impossible to establish in view of the loss of the relevant document that could prove it. On 26 July 2012 St. Petersburg City Court's resolution cancelled and remitted for fresh examination the decision of the Moskovskiy District Court of St. Petersburg of 2 1 June 2012 on administrative expulsion of a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan M. and his placement in an special institution pending expulsion. The Court took into account that the first instance court heard the case without a proper fu ll and complete investigation of all circumstances of the case and that the issues of importance for the proper settlement of the case, have not been investigated (M. certificate of identity was not certified properly, the report of an authorized officer contains conflicting infotmation about the 15 arrested person, documents on residence time in Russia of M have not been examined by the court). As a result of this revision M. was released from special institution. On 15 July 2014 the Belorechensk District Court of the Krasnodar Region brought M.N., a national of the Republic of Armenia, to administrative liabil ity under Atticle 18.8 § 1.1. of the CAO RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia (under a visa-free entry procedure) due to her failure to leave the country upon expiration of her stay, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion on her. The court took into account that her husband and minor child are the Russian nationals and live together with her and that at the time of consideration she applied to the Department of the Federal Migration Service of Krasnodar Region for residence permit. On 28 July 2011, St. Petersburg City Court resolution cancell ed and remitted for fresh examination the decision of the Frunzenskiy District Court of St. Petersburg of 15 September 2019 on administrative expulsion of a national of the Republic of Algeria H. and his placement in a special centre pending expulsion. The court granted the complaint of H. and his representative about the restoration of period of appeal of the decision of the district comt, about the release of H. from special institution, as well as the cancellation of the decision on administrative expulsion, since the case file did not contain infonnation about clarification of rights to a foreign national about the possibility of providing an interpreter to him, about clarification of the need to provide this service to him, about clarification of his rights and obi igations in accordance with the COA RF, about obtaining of a copy of the protocol, as well as the copy of the di stri ct court decision in the native language or language of his choice. On 26 November 2013, Moscow City Court judgement changed the Golovinskiy District Colllt decision on administrative expul sion of Armenia national A. because of non-compliance with the procedure for infonning the migration authorities of the place of residence. The administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation in her respect was cancelled. The Court took into account that the first instance court has not been taken into account that the applicant's residence permit has not expired and that the applicant's mother and brother are nationals of Russia. On 9 September 2014, St. Petersburg City Court judgement cancelled and remitted for fresh examination the decision of the Krasnogvardeiskiy District Court of St. Petersburg dated 6 August 2014 on administrative expulsion of the Republic of Uzbekistan national A. The Court noted the absence of information in the protocol about the interpreter, who performed the translation in the preparation of the protocol, about clarification him the possibility to prosecution for deliberately wrong interpretation, and the failure of the submitted documents and their inconsistency fom1 required by law. On 3 June 2014 the Belorechensk District Court of the Krasnodar Region brought A.A., a national of Georgia, to administrative Ii ability under Article 18.8 § 1.1. of the CAO RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia due to her failure to leave the country upon expiration of her stay, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion on her. The court took into account that A.A. entered Russia to live with her husband and minor child, who are Russian nationals, that she gave birth to a second child in Russia and has been living in Russia with her family for a long time at the place of her husband's registration. 16

On 14 March 2013, St. Petersburg City Court resolution quashed Kalininskiy District Court of St. Petersburg decision of 9 September 201 2 on administrative expulsion of Republic of Tajikistan national M. with remittal of the case to a fresh examination. The court took into account that the first instance colllt did not elucidate relevant to the case circumstances in the absence of the person identity documents, which is a gross violation of the procedural requirements of the Administrative Code. Decision of the St. Petersburg City Court on March 14, 2013 under the supervisory procedure to cancel the decision of the Vyborg district court of St. Petersburg on July 25, 2011 on administrative expulsion of a national of Somalia A. and his placement in an institution and the decision of the St. Petersburg City Court of 4 August 2011, that the complaint A. to a court of first instance dismissed. The Court found that the earlier decision be rescinded and the decision of the court of first instance the direction for a new trial, as made with a gross violation of the procedural requirements of the law (the decision of the Vyborg District Court had not been signed by the judge issued it). A. As a result of the revision released from institutions. On 27 November 2014 the Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) brought Ch.V., a Chinese national, to administrative liability under Article 1 8.8 § 1.1. of the CoAP RF for breaching the stay regulations in the Russian Federation, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion on him. The court took into account that Ch.V. is married to a Russian national and they live together. On 13 November 2014, St. Petersburg City Court decision quashed Frunzenskiy district court of St. Petersburg decision from 26 June 2014 on administrative expulsion of Republic of Uzbekistan national S. and to place him in an special institution to the expulsion with remittal of the case for a fresh examination. The court took into account that the protocol on administrative offence includes no signature of the person who composed it and of S., the translation of protocol to the native language of the S. on the subscription of interpreter about explaining to him the administrative responsibility for the implementation of a deliberately wrong translation, as there is no name and signature of the judge ad that the decision of the District Court does not correspond to the date of the protocol. On 17 February 2014 the Novokubansk District Court of the Krasnodar Region brought A.A.R., a stateless person (born in the Republic of Armenia) to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1. of the CoAP RF for staying without any documents confirming his right to reside in Russia, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion on him. The court took into account that A.A.R. has been living in Russia with his father, a Russian national, for a long time, and that at the time of consideration of the case he applied for Russian citizenship. By its decision of November 10, 2014, the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow terminated the administrative proceedings against B.A., a national of the Republic of Armenia, under Article 18.8 § 3 of the CAO RF. B.A. was charged with breaching the regulations for migration law. The court noted that the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow had already found B.A. guilty of the same offence. 17

On 19 February 2014 the Gulkevichsk District Court of the Krasnodar Region brought S.L, a stateless person (born in the Republic of Azerbaijan) to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1. of the CoAP RF for her failure to leave the country upon expiration of her visa, which had been received under the prescribed procedure, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion on her. The court took into account that she is married to a Russian national, lives together with her husband in his house and has a dependent minor child. On 1 November 2012, St. Petersburg City Court resolution upon the motion of prosecutor quashed and remitted for a fresh examination decision ofK.rasnoselskiy District Court of St. Petersburg of 3 October 2012 on administrative expulsion of Republic of Uzbekistan national B. and his placement in special centre. B. was accused of violating of migration control rules on account of the absence of documents confirming the right to stay in Russia. The Court found substantial disadvantages of the protocol (the lack of data on B. Russian language knowledge, in which was conducted the proceedings), as well as other procedural irregularities, which the first instance court left unattended. As a result of this revision B. was released from the special centre. On 28 April 2011, St. Petersburg City Court resolution upon motion of a prosecutor quashed decision of Kalininskiy District Court of St. Petersburg of 29 March 201 1 the on administrative expulsion ofRepublic ofTajikistan national N., who was accused of failure to depart from the territory of Russia upon the expiry of the legal stay. The court found substantial procedural violations due to absence of materials proving grounds, order and legality of the migration supervision activities, due to which B. was detained by the Federal Migration Service of Russia, which prevented a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of all circumstances of the case. The case was remitted for a fresh examination. On 7 August 2014 the Krasnodar Region Court changed the decision of the Kavkazskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region of 21 July 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of A.A., a national of the Republic of Tajikistan. The court noted that when delivering the above decision, the trial court had not properly assessed the fact that A.A. had a wife of Russian nationality and a minor child. On 19 November 2014 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic changed the decision of the Ust-Vymskiy District Court of the Komi Republic of 8 October 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of S.M., a national of the Republic of Moldova. The court noted that when delivering the above decision, the trial court had not properly assessed the fact that S.M. has a wife of Russian nationality and a minor daughter. On 25 June 2014 the Industrial District Court of Khabarovsk brought S.F., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1. of the CoAP RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia due to his failure to apply for extending the patent that entitled him to staying in Russia, and failure to leave Russia upon expiration of that document. He was imposed with administrative fine without expulsion. The court took into account that S.F.'s pregnant wife and minor child are residing in Russia. 18

On 15 December 2014 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ufa of the Republic of Bashkortostan brought R.Kh., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1. of the CoAP RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia due to his staying without any documents confirming the lawfulness of his residence, and imposed a fine without administrative expulsion from Russia on him. The court took into account that R.Kh. is living in informal marriage with a Russian national and has two minor children, as well as the fact that R.Kh. lives together with them. By its decision of 28 October 2014, the Vyksa Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region brought B.L., a national of the Republic of Azerbaijan, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1 of the CAO RF for breaching the regulations of stay in Russian on account of avoidance of leaving the country upon the expiration of the period of her stay, and sentenced her to a fine without administrative expulsion. The Court took into account that husband and son of B. L. were nationals of Russia. By its decision of 4 June 4 2014, the Bichurskiy District Court of the Republic of Buryatia brought L.L., a national of the People's Republic of China, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1. 1 of the CAO RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russia on account of the avoidance of leaving the country upon the expiration of the his visa, obtained by him in due course, and sentenced him to a fine without administrative expulsion. The Court took into account that L. L. was in fact maiTied to a Russian national who was pregnant. By its decision of 12 February 2014, the Zlynkovskiy District Court of the Bryansk Region brought N.N., a national of the Republic of Azerbaijan, to administrative liability under Article 18.9 § 1.1 of the CAO RF for breaching the stay regulations in Russian on account of the avoidance to leaving the country upon the expiration of the prescribed peri od, and sentenced her to a fine without administrative expulsion. The Comt took into account that N. N. was married to a Russian national and that she had two children. On 23 May 2014, the Zhukovskiy District Court of Bryansk Region adopted the decision on bringing V.S., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, to administrative liability under Article 18.9 § 1.1 of the CAO RF for violation of the regime of stay in Russia arising from avoidance of departure upon the expiry of the patent term, and sentenced him to penalty of fine without administrative expulsion. The Court took into account that V. S. is in an actual marital relationship with the national of Russia, has a child and permanent place of residence in Russia. On 16 May 2014, the Sysertskiy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region adopted the decision on bringing Kh. V., a national of the Republic of Armenia, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1 of the CAO RF for violation of the regimen for stay in Russia arising from avoidance of departure upon the expiry of the stay period, and sentenced him to penalty of fine without administrative expulsion. The Court took into account that the wife and children ofKh. V. have a permanent place of residence in Russia. 19

On 14 July 2014, the Staropoltavskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region adopted the decision on bringing I. R., a national of the Republic of Tajikistan, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1 of the CAO RF for violation of the regimen for stay in Russia (upon visa-free entry) arising from avoidance of departure upon the expiry of the stay period, and sentenced him to penalty of fine without administrative expulsion. The Court took into account that the wife and two minor children of I. R. have a pennanent place of residence in Russia. On 22 January 2015, the Nyazepterovskiy District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region adopted the decision on bringing Zh. N ., a national of the Republic of Moldova, to administrative liability under Article 18.8 § 1.1 of the CAO RF for violation of the regimen for stay in Russia arising from avoidance of departure upon the expiry of the stay period, and sentenced him to penalty of fine without administrative expulsion. The Court took into account that Zh. N. is in an actual marital relationship with the national of Russia, actively participates in education of her son, plans to retum to the motherland to execute documents necessary for legalization in Russia. On 7 November 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation changed the decision of the Abinsk District Court of the Krasnodar Region of 11 April 2014, judgment of the Krasnodar Region Court of24 April 2014, and the decision ofthe deputy president of the Krasnodar Region Court of 21 May 2014 by excluding the indication to administrative expulsion of B.O., a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, fTom the Russian Federation. The Court noted that when delivering the above decisions, the courts had not taken into account that B.O. has close relatives of Russian nationality, including those who are incapable of work and live in Russia.