Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the decision of the State Migration Service regarding the forced return of a citizen of the Russian Federation to their country of origin due to the expiration of a temporary residence permit under martial law.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation indicated that the lower courts applied a formalistic approach, limiting themselves solely to stating the fact of the document expiration without analyzing the individual circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that under martial law, when the provision of administrative services was suspended, foreign nationals found themselves in a situation of legal uncertainty; therefore, courts are obliged to verify whether the actions of the foreign national were intentional and whether they attempted to legalize their stay. It is important to examine whether the plaintiff contacted the State Migration Service bodies (in particular, through oral inquiries) and whether they received refusals, which would confirm their good faith. The court also underscored the necessity of assessing the proportionality of the interference with the plaintiff\u2019s private and family life, given that the plaintiff is married to a citizen of Ukraine, in light of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The lower courts did not evaluate these arguments and did not establish whether there were actual obstacles to legalization, which constitutes a violation of the principle of the official clarification of all circumstances of the case. The court departed from its previous position, noting that the formal failure to meet deadlines established by the resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers under martial law is not an unconditional ground for forced return without taking into account the individual circumstances and the good faith of the person.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial.<\/p>\n