abuse by the authorities. Before such a control body the person concerned must benefit from an adversarial procedure in order to be able to present his point of view and to challenge the arguments of the authorities17. Given that the applicant did not enjoy a minimum degree of protection against the arbitrariness of the authorities before the administrative authorities or the Court of Appeal, the Court concluded that the breach of his private life was not provided for by “a law meeting the requirements of the Convention”.  Ozdil and others v. the Republic of Moldova, 42305/18, 11.06.2019. The plaintiffs were teachers in a network of private schools in Moldova, called Orizont, which has been active since 1993. On the morning of 6 September 2018, the applicants were arrested at their home or on their way to work, and taken to an unknown direction by people wearing civilian clothes. Later, the Moldovan Intelligence and Security Service made several statements regarding a large-scale counterterrorism operation that took place that day, during which seven foreign nationals suspected of links to an Islamist organization were arrested and removed from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, in collaboration with the secret services of other countries. The ECtHR reiterates that the Convention does not, as such, guarantee the right of a foreigner to enter or reside in a particular country. However, the expulsion of a person from a country where close family members live may constitute a violation of the right to respect for family life, in accordance with Article 8 § 1 of the Convention18. 7.4. Article 13 “The right to an effective remedy”  Allanazarova v. Russia - 46721/15, 14.02.2017 The case was initiated at the request of Natalia Allanazarova against the Russian Federation on September 24, 2015. The plaintiff was a citizen of Turkmenistan. The plaintiff was submitted according to art.34 to the ECHR. The plaintiff stated that she was at risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment on her return to Turkmenistan, and that she did not have effective means of legal protection which she could have used to challenge the actions of the Russian authorities. The ECtHR ruled that where the plaintiff claims that there is a risk of ill-treatment in the event of her return to her country of origin, the remedy for this is effective only if it meets the following two criteria: first, to have a suspensive effect removal; on the other hand, to lead to independent and rigorous risk control. 17 Al-Nashif v. Bulgary, no. 50.963/99, §§123 and 124, 20.06.2002; Boultif c. Swiss, no. 54273/00, § 39, ECHR 2001 IX. 18 61