| Applicant name | MIRZOYAN |
| Applicant type | immigrant |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | CZECH REPUBLIC |
| Application no. | 15117/21 15689/21 |
| Date | 16/05/2024 |
| Judges | Marko Bošnjak, President, Alena Poláčková, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Lətif Hüseynov, Péter Paczolay, Ivana Jelić, Gilberto Felici |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | No violation |
| Reason | Necessary (public order) |
| Type of privacy | Relational privacy |
| Keywords | Residence permit |
| Facts of the case | the applicant complained that before dismissing his applications for a residence permit, the authorities had failed to establish all the relevant circumstances concerning his family situation and the best interests of the children. |
| Analysis | While the Court acknowledges that the applicant’s family would certainly be affected by his leaving the Czech Republic, it is ready to accept the highest courts’ conclusion that the impact on his children was rather indirect , according to the categorisation developed by the Constitutional Court. This is all the more so as the applicant made no submissions about the impact his relocation would have on his children, nor did he suggest that he played a central role in the family and that his presence in the Czech Republic was important for his children’s well-being. He did not put forward any reasons why his family would not be able to visit him in Russia or why they would not be able to stay in contact through modern means of communication. The Court also observes that the applicant is currently trying to obtain a temporary residence permit for a family member of an EU citizen. If he is unsuccessful and an order to leave is issued against him, he will be able to challenge it . In the absence of an expulsion order, he will also have the possibility of applying for a visa in order to visit his family in the Czech Republic. The Court further notes that while four of the applicant’s children were minors in 2011 when he applied for extension of his residence permit for business purposes, three were still minors when he applied for a new residence permit for family purposes in 2014; two of them (currently aged seventeen and fourteen) are still minors. In such circumstances, given the significant amount of time which has elapsed since the beginning of the impugned domestic proceedings and the subsequent decisions denying the applicant a residence permit, and given that no formal order to leave has yet been issued against him , the Court cannot but observe that the applicant has been able to enjoy family life with his children for most of their childhood. Moreover, the applicant appears to be still in the Czech Republic since the proceedings relating to his application for a temporary residence permit for a family member of an EU citizen remain pending, which de facto prevents the authorities from expelling him. Bearing in mind that it is not the Court’s role to examine whether the authorities’ conduct complied with the relevant standards of domestic law , the Court considers, in the circumstances of the present case, that the domestic authorities gave sufficient consideration to the applicant’s family ties and, with reference to the case-law of the Court, carried out balancing of the relevant interests at stake, without overstepping the margin of appreciation afforded to them. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | – |
| Documents | Judgment |