4.  The applicants are a family. The first applicant, Mr Omer Akçay (also spelt Emer and Emir Akchay), who was born in 1960, is a Turkish national. The second and third applicants are his wife, Ms Svetlana Akchay, who was born in 1975, and his son, Mr Deniz Akchay, who was born in 2000. Both of them are Russian nationals. The first applicant’s surname is spelt as it would be in Turkish. The second and third applicants’ surname is the same as that of the first applicant, but it has been transliterated into Russian and has a different spelling.
Background information 5.  The first applicant has been residing in Turkey since April 2016. Prior to that, from 1999 to 2016, he resided with his family in Syktyvkar, in the Komi Republic, Russia. The second and third applicants still reside there. 6.  At some point prior to December 1999 the first applicant moved from Turkey to Russia and started living with the second applicant in Syktyvkar. He resided in Russia on the basis of regularly extended residence permits. 7.  In January 2000 the third applicant was born and the first applicant was registered on his birth certificate as his father. The third applicant goes to school in Syktyvkar. 8.  In 2007 the first applicant was officially registered as a business owner; he had a cattle farm, where he employed five Russian nationals. 9.  On 27 January 2015 the Komi Department of the Federal Migration Service (“the Komi FMS”) granted the first applicant yet another renewal of his five-year residence permit, valid until 3 February 2020. 10.  On 2 December 2015 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 27 November and 4 December 2015) the Komi Department of the Federal Security Service (“the Komi FSB”) issued a letter requesting that the FMS annul (revoke) the first applicant’s residence permit. The text of the document stated as follows:
“... on 13 October 2005 the Komi FMS issued Mr E. Akchay – a Turkish national who was born on 1 January 1960 in Malazgirt, Turkey – with residence permit 82 no. 0013753 (by FMS decision no. 015777 of 13 October 2005).
According to the department’s information, this person’s actions mean that he poses a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation, which, in accordance with section 9(1)(1) of the Foreign Nationals Act, provides grounds for annulling a foreigner’s residence permit in the Russian Federation.
Given the above, we ask you to annul the residence permit of the Turkish national Mr Emer Akchay, in accordance with the Russian legislation.” 11.  The above request by the Komi FSB specified neither the grounds for the measure nor the nature of the alleged threat. 12.  On 8 December 2015 the Komi FMS annulled the first applicant’s residence permit with reference to section 9(1)(1) of the Foreign Nationals Act, which provided for the revocation of the residence permits of foreign nationals who posed a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation or its citizens. 13.  On 29 December 2015 the first applicant was invited to the Komi FMS, where he was made aware of the annulment decision and his residence permit was confiscated. He was warned that he was supposed to leave Russia within two weeks, or he would be deported. The first applicant was not informed of the grounds for the annulment. 14.  On 26 January 2016 the applicants’ farm was inspected by the Russian Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance, which fined the first applicant 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for failing to comply with a number of relevant regulations – for example, for not having pet passports for three of the farm dogs and for piling up manure within less than sixty metres of the cattle barn. 15.  On 17 February 2016 the Komi FMS issued a decision ordering the first applicant to leave Russia within five days of receiving the decision, under the threat of deportation, and banning his re-entry into the Russian Federation until 19 September 2018. The first applicant was informed of that decision on 7 April 2016. 16.  On an unspecified date in April 2016 the first applicant was again invited to the Komi FSB and reminded to leave Russia on his own initiative, as otherwise he would be detained and then deported. He was given an exit visa valid until 20 April 2016. 17.  On 20 April 2016 the first applicant left Russia. The second and third applicants remained in Syktyvkar to take care of the farm and continue attending school. 18.  On 13 July 2016 (in the documents submitted, the date was also referred to as 21 June 2016) the first and second applicants officially registered their marriage in Turkey. 19.  On 31 December 2015 the first applicant appealed to the Syktyvkar Town Court (“the Town Court”) against the annulment of his residence permit, stating that the Komi FSB’s request of 2 December 2015 to annul his residence permit had been made on national security grounds which were unknown to him, and that the subsequent decision of the Komi FMS complying with that request and annulling his residence permit was unlawful and disproportionate. He stated that he had a family in Russia, was a business owner, had no criminal record or record of administrative offences, and that the annulment of his residence permit would deprive him of grounds for staying in Russia and disrupt his family and private life. 20.  On 24 February 2016 the Town Court examined the first applicant’s appeal. At the hearing, representatives of the Komi FSB informed the court that the first applicant had received eleven (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as twelve) administrative fines for speeding, for which six tickets had been issued in 2015, three tickets in 2014 and two tickets in 2013. In addition, in 2015 the first applicant had been fined for other traffic violations, such as driving a vehicle with a defect, on three occasions. He had also received two administrative fines for violating the terms of foreigners’ residence in Russia (failing to register within the prescribed time-limit, in 2013 and then in 2015). In addition, on one occasion in January 2016 he had been fined for failing to comply with veterinary regulations at the cattle farm. 21.  The first applicant’s representative stated at the hearing that the first applicant had a farm in Russia, diligently paid taxes, employed several Russian nationals, and had a wife and a fourteen-year-old son. After the Russian military aircraft had been brought down in Turkey, the traffic police had started stopping the first applicant “at every turn”. When the first applicant’s representative asked the Komi FSB’s representative why, despite all of the alleged administrative infractions, the first applicant’s permanent residence permit had been extended yet again in February 2015 without any problems, the Komi FSB’s representative replied as follows:
“the international situation is complicated, therefore the attitude in Russia towards violations by foreign nationals has become stricter”.
The first applicant’s representative invited the applicants’ neighbour, Ms Ch., to the hearing, who testified that she had known the first applicant for twenty years, that he was a well-respected man who helped local orphans, that he worked for the good of the local community, and that he had a wife and son and was the breadwinner of the family. 22.  At the hearing the first applicant also asserted that he had not been made aware of the detailed information concerning his administrative infractions which had been presented to the court by the Komi FSB prior to the hearing. He stressed that he was still unaware of the nature of the threat he allegedly posed to Russia’s national security, and that he had family in Russia, including a son who was a minor. He also had a farm which required constant attention. He admitted that he had had speeding tickets, but stressed that such infractions were very common and were of a minor nature, and that throughout the time he had been living in Russia he had never had a traffic accident. In his opinion, the impugned decision to exclude him from Russia had been taken in view of the strained relations between Russia and Turkey after the incident with the Russian military aircraft. 23.  On the same date, 24 February 2016, the Town Court upheld the annulment of the first applicant’s residence permit. In its decision, the court referred to his record of administrative violations as submitted by the Komi FSB at the hearing. The court did not make any references to the nature of the threat posed by the first applicant to national security, other than stating that his record of administrative offences for the last three years had provided the necessary basis for the Komi FSB’s request to annul his residence permit. The Komi FSB did not provide any other documents substantiating its request for the first applicant to be excluded on national security grounds. The court did not examine the first applicant’s complaints concerning the disruptive effect of the exclusion on his family life. 24.  On 17 March 2016 the first applicant appealed to the Komi Supreme Court against the judgment of 24 February 2016, stating, amongst other things, that he had been residing in Russia since 1999, and that since 2005 he had been living there on the basis of regularly extended five-year residence permits. The last extension had been granted in February 2015, which demonstrated that he was a long-term migrant of good standing who complied with the relevant regulations. The first applicant further stated that he had always paid the taxes relating to his farm business and that he provided jobs for five Russian nationals. Referring to Article 8 of the Convention, he submitted that the annulment violated his and his family members’ right to respect for their family life, and that it was a disproportionate measure that did not pursue a legitimate aim. Lastly, the first applicant stressed that he was still unaware of the nature of the threat he allegedly posed to the national security of the Russian Federation. 25.  On 15 and 28 April 2016 the Komi FSB lodged its objections to the first applicant’s appeal with the Komi Supreme Court, demanding that the court find against him. Amongst other things, its submissions of 15 April 2016 stated the following:
“... State security bodies, in particular the Federal Security Service, have the right to evaluate the activities of foreign citizens and stateless persons as [people] representing a threat to defence, the security of the State, public order or health, and the court has no right to interfere with that authority. The use of those preventive measures in respect of national security is left to the discretion of the Federal Security Service.
Issues relating to national security are specific, and their evaluation is carried out by designated bodies on the basis of information obtained from sources, including those outside of judicial control.
Therefore, the Federal Security Service is not supposed to provide the court with documents substantiating the grounds for its decisions concerning the undesirability of the residence of a foreign citizen in the Russian Federation, as such documents contain State secrets, and the court does not have authority to request those documents ...” 26.  Amongst other things, the FSB’s further submissions to the court of 15 April 2016 stated the following:
“... the information concerning the annulment of the residence permit was provided to the Federal Migration Service by the Federal Security Service on the basis of classified decision no. 18577c of 27 November 2015 concerning the applicant’s actions posing a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation and its citizens, [actions] which serve as the basis for the annulment of the residence permit, in accordance with section 9(1) of The Foreign Nationals Act ...
The [Komi] FSB provided the court of first instance with [only] information whose disclosure was not limited ...” 27.  On 5 May 2016 the Komi Supreme Court examined the appeal and upheld the annulment. In its decision, the court referred to the first applicant’s record of administrative violations committed between 2013 and 2016 and some undisclosed information provided by the FSB, without specifying what the nature of that information was. The court stated that the decision to annul the residence permit had been taken by the FSB within its executive authority, and that the information obtained from classified sources was not subject to judicial control, stating as follows:
“... the court takes into account that in accordance with Federal Law no. 40- ФЗ on the Federal Security Service of 3 April 1995, the right to assess the activities of foreign nationals as [people] representing a threat to the State’s defence capacity or national security, or public order or health, is within the competence of the Russian FSB and lies within the discretion of the security service. Within administrative proceedings, the court does not have the right to assess the [information relating to] factors threatening national security which has been obtained in respect of a foreign national ...”
As for the first applicant’s allegations regarding the adverse effect of the measure on his right to respect for family life, the court stated as follows:
“the annulment did not represent an inadmissible interference by the authorities with the right to respect for family life”. 28.  On 28 October 2016 the first applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the Komi Supreme Court, and on 25 November 2016 the court rejected it without examining his allegations concerning the violation of his right to respect for family life. 29.  On 13 February 2017 the Administrative Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to examine a further cassation appeal lodged by the first applicant. 30.  On 17 February 2016 the Komi FMS issued a decision banning the first applicant from re-entering the Russian Federation until 19 September 2018 (the entry ban) and ordering him to leave Russia within five days of receiving the decision, under the threat of deportation. The first applicant was informed of that decision on 7 April 2016 (see paragraph 15 above). 31.  On 18 April 2016 the first applicant appealed to the Town Court against the above entry ban. He stated, in particular, that the decision referred to his record of administrative infractions for speeding and failing to comply with minor immigration regulations and sanitary rules at the farm, but the ban imposed had been issued on national security grounds which he still did not know about. The first applicant further stated the ban was a disproportionate punishment, as he was a law-abiding resident of good standing who paid all his taxes and employed Russian nationals. The first applicant stressed that when imposing the sanction, the authorities had failed to balance the public interests with his right to respect for his family life with his son and wife. 32.  On 19 July 2016 the Town Court rejected the first applicant’s appeal, referring to his administrative infractions and stating that “the impugned decision had been taken in accordance with the law and within the authority of the Komi FMS”. 33.  On 30 March 2017 the Komi Supreme Court upheld the above decision and on 22 August 2017 it rejected a cassation appeal by the first applicant.