CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC8702D41 { width:154.61pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 56580/13 T. and OTHERS against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9   December 2014 as a Chamber composed of:   Ineta Ziemele, President,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Paul Mahoney,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Faris Vehabović, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 2013, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants, Mr T. and his wife and two minor children, are Russian nationals who were born in 1965, 1971, 1997 and 2002 respectively. The President granted the applicants’ request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). They were represented before the Court by Ms Kirsi Hytinantti, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. 2.     The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Account of events provided by the applicants 4.     The applicants are a family from the Ingushetia region of Russia. They belong to the Ingush ethnic minority and are Muslims by religion. The first applicant, the father of the family, worked as a taxi driver and also had a car repair shop. The couple have not been politically, socially or religiously active. However, in 2007 they started to have problems. The first applicant claims that for one week in July-August 2007, he worked as a driver for two men who were apparently involved in insurgency acts. One of the men was killed in 2008 and the other managed to escape the country. 5.     At the beginning of 2009 the first applicant claims that masked men in army clothes came to his car repair shop to look for his client, whose car was in the shop. As the client was not there, the men took him instead and kept him in some sort of cellar for three days and ill-treated him. He was questioned about his client and about the two men he had driven around in 2007. The applicant was threatened with charges for having participated in armed attacks He was allegedly asked also to pay 600,000 roubles in order not to be charged. He paid half of the sum when he was released. After that his wife and children went to live with other relatives. The first applicant was in hiding for the rest of the year and escaped in January 2010 to Finland through Moscow and St. Petersburg, with a tourist group holding a Schengen visa. 6.     While the rest of the family stayed with relatives, the armed men came to search for information about the first applicant from their neighbours and at the house of the second applicant’s mother. They did not know where the first applicant had gone, so they fled to Poland. Through other asylum seekers they obtained information that the first applicant was in Finland and they travelled there to seek asylum. 7.     The second applicant submitted to the Finnish authorities two faxed documents in Russian with their Finnish translations. Those documents were addressed to the first applicant in January and February 2010 by the investigative department of the Ministry of the Interior and he was summoned for questioning as a crime suspect. The crime of which he was suspected was not, however, mentioned in the documents. The first applicant claims that he does not know why he is wanted, but claims that sometimes ethnicity and religion suffice to arouse the suspicion of the security authorities in Ingushetia. 8.     The first and the second applicants both suffer from somewhat severe post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The first applicant has also been suffering from headaches, insomnia and prostate problems which have been treated at the reception centre. Only in March 2013 he sought help for his psychological problems. He was subsequently examined and treated at the Centre for Torture Survivors ( Kidutettujen kuntoutuskeskus , Centret för rehabilitering av tortyroffer ) in Finland. The Deputy Chief Physician of the Centre recommended both private and group therapy together with medication for his trauma. No physical signs of ill-treatment were, however, reported. The second applicant has had symptoms of amnesia attacks and uncontrollable behaviour. She has been treated since 2012 and referred to the Centre for Torture Survivors in Finland for further examination and treatment. 9.     On 9 September 2013 the applicants submitted information to the Court that the third applicant, the son of the family born in 1997, had gone missing on 7 September 2013. The third applicant was found on 18   September 2013 and subsequently reunited with the other applicants. On 23 September 2013 the second applicant gave birth to a third child who is suffering from a kidney pelvis extension. Asylum proceedings 10.     The first applicant arrived in Finland on 11 January 2010 and immediately sought asylum. On 16 March 2011 the Finnish Immigration Service ( Maahanmuuttovirasto, Migrationsverket ) rejected the application, considering it not probable that the Russian authorities would be especially interested in the applicant as he had not been politically, socially or religiously active. It furthermore considered that, as the security situation was indeed relatively poor in Ingushetia, the applicant could in any event always relocate internally inside the Russian Federation. 11.     The second, third and fourth applicants had sought asylum in Poland on 12 June 2010 but their applications were rejected on 29 April 2011 and their appeal was rejected on 22 July 2011. They arrived in Finland on 15   August 2011 and sought asylum on 18 August 2011. 12.     Meanwhile, the first applicant had appealed against the negative asylum decision. On 16 November 2011 the Administrative Court ( hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen ) referred the first applicant’s case back to the Immigration Service in order for them to consider the applications of the whole family together. 13.     On 24 April 2012 the Immigration Service rejected the asylum applications of the whole family and ordered their removal to Russia. It considered firstly that in the first applicant’s first asylum application he mentioned the problems in Ingushetia only in very general and vague terms and without specifying any personal threats. The story became personal only in the first asylum interview. Also the authenticity of the copies of “summonses” submitted by the applicant was impossible to verify. Moreover, the Immigration Service went on to consider that, as the applicants had not been in any way active or profiled persons, it was unlikely that the Russian authorities would be interested in them if returned to Russia. The applicants could in any event relocate internally. 14.     By letter dated 22 June 2012 the applicants appealed, requesting that the decision of the Immigration Service be quashed and that they be granted asylum, or alternatively, secondary protection or a residence permit due to individual humanitarian circumstances, taking into consideration also the best interest of the children and the unreasonableness of the expulsion. They also requested that an oral hearing be held. 15.     On 14 January 2013 the Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ appeal and refused their request for an oral hearing as unnecessary. It considered, like the Immigration Service, that the authenticity of the faxed documents named “summons” was impossible to verify and they did not appear exactly credible. It was impossible to draw any conclusions from those summonses regarding the events about which the applicants were complaining. On the other hand, there were no reasons to doubt the applicants’ story or their credibility overall. However, the sole fact that the first applicant had been a driver for some insurgents in 2007 did not seem the sort of activity which would arouse the interest of the Russian authorities. The acts directed against him in 2009 were aimed at obtaining information from him about the others, but he was not personally suspected of any illegal activism himself. As the applicants had not been otherwise active and had no other contact with the insurgents, the Administrative Court concluded that it was unlikely that the Russian authorities would persecute the applicants if returned to Russia. It furthermore considered that the security situation was indeed unstable in the region but that it alone did not give rise to a need for international protection. 16.     By letter dated 31 January 2013 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court ( korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ), requesting also a stay on the execution of their expulsion order, which was not granted. 17.     On 4 December 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicants leave to appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law Constitution of Finland 18.     According to Article 9, paragraph 4, of the Constitution of Finland (Suomen perustuslaki, Finlands grundlag ; Act no. 731/1999), the right of foreigners to enter Finland and to remain in the country is regulated by an Act. A foreigner shall not be deported, extradited or returned to another country, if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence, torture or other treatment violating human dignity. Aliens Act 19.     According to section 87, subsection 1, of the Aliens Act ( ulkomaalaislaki, utlänningslagen ; Act no. 301/2004), aliens residing in the country are granted asylum if they reside outside their home country or country of permanent residence owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ethnic origin, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and if they, because of this fear, are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. 20.     Section 88, subsection 1, of the Act (as amended by Act   no.   323/2009) provides that an alien residing in Finland is issued with a residence permit on grounds of subsidiary protection if the requirements for granting asylum under section 87 are not met, but substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person, if returned to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm, and he or she is unable, or owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country. Serious harm means: 1) the death penalty or execution; 2) torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or 3) serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts. 21.     Under section 88a of the Act (as amended by Act no. 323/2009), an alien residing in Finland is issued with a residence permit on the basis of humanitarian protection, if there are no grounds under section 87 or 88 for granting asylum or providing subsidiary protection, but he or she cannot return to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence as a result of an environmental catastrophe or a bad security situation which may be due to an international or internal armed conflict or a poor human rights situation. 22.     According to section 88b of the Act (as amended by Act   no.   323/2009), the well-founded fear of being persecuted referred to in section 87b or the real risk of being subjected to serious harm referred to in section 88 may be based on incidents after the applicant’s departure from his or her home country or country of permanent residence or on acts that the applicant has participated in since his or her departure. 23.     Section 98, subsection 2, of the Act (as amended by Act   no.   432/2009) provides that the requirements for issuing a residence permit are assessed individually for each applicant by taking account of the applicant’s statements on his or her circumstances in the State in question and of real time information on the circumstances in that State obtained from various sources. After obtaining the statement, the authorities shall decide on the matter in favour of the applicant on the basis of his or her statement if the applicant has contributed to the investigation of the matter as far as possible, and if the authorities are convinced of the veracity of the application with regard to the applicant’s need for international protection. 24.     According to section 147 of the Act, no one may be refused entry and sent back or deported to an area where he or she could be subject to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other treatment violating human dignity or from where he or she could be sent to such an area. 25.     Section 147b of the Aliens Act (as amended by Act no. 1214/2013) incorporates into the Finnish legal system the Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more member States, of third-country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders. The annex to the Decision contains common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air including, inter alia , an obligation for the member States to ensure that the returnees for whom they are responsible are in an appropriate state of health, which allows legally and factually for safe removal by air. C.     Relevant international materials 26.     According to the U.S. State Department’s Country Report on Russia for 2013: “ The government failed to take adequate steps to prosecute or punish most officials who committed abuses, resulting in a climate of impunity. Rule of law was particularly deficient in the North Caucasus, where conflict among government forces, insurgents, Islamist militants, and criminal forces led to numerous human rights abuses, including killings, torture, physical abuse, and politically motivated abductions.” 27.     The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Mental Health Atlas from 2005 provides the following information on the mental health care situation in the Russian Federation: “Mental health is a part of primary health care system. Actual treatment of severe mental disorders is not available at the primary level. The practice of recognition and treatment of depression in primary care is developing in several regions. ... There are community care facilities for patients with mental disorders. A social rehabilitation system including workshops, rehabilitation units in industrial firms and residential homes (for about 125 000 persons) exists. Day care facilities are available for almost 15 000 persons. Home care is also provided in some cases. ... The system of Russian Ministry of Health consists of 278 mental hospitals, 164 psycho-neurological outpatient clinics (dispensaries) that include day-hospitals as separate wards in their structure (each dispensary provides sectorised coverage to a population of approximately 25 000 people); 2010 psychoneurological consulting rooms in rural areas; 1117 psychotherapeutic rooms, mostly in primary care facilities. There are also beds in 442 hostels, nursing homes and ‘internats’ under the authority of the Ministry of Social Protection. ... The country has specific programmes for mental health for refugees, disaster affected population and elderly. Programmes on refugees and disaster victims are carried out by the Ministry of Emergency Situations (EMERCOM). Elderly population are looked after by the Ministry of Social Protection. ... The following therapeutic drugs are generally available at the primary health care level of the country: carbamazepine, ethosuximide, phenobarbital, phenytoin sodium, sodium valproate, amitriptyline, chlorpromazine, diazepam, fluphenazine, haloperidol, lithium, biperiden, carbidopa, levodopa. The Ministry of Health and Social Assistance approved the list of mentally ill who would receive free medication in 1993, the funds for which were to be allocated by local institutions.” COMPLAINTS 28.     The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they would face a real risk of ill-treatment if expelled to Russia. 29.     They complained under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for family life would be violated if they were expelled to Russia while their minor son, the third applicant, had gone missing in Finland. THE LAW A.     Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention 30.     The applicants complained that they risked being subjected to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if removed to Russia. 31.     Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 32.     The Government noted that the applicants had not provided any evidence to demonstrate that they were of particular interest to the authorities in their home country. The Immigration Service had found that the alleged violations of the applicants’ rights had not been attributable to circumstances related to their personal or ethnic background but that experiences of that kind were typical of the overall security situation in Ingushetia. The authenticity of the summonses addressed to the first applicant could not be ascertained because of the poor quality of the copies available. The forensic laboratory could not give a statement on a copy of a document as it generally examined whether a document was forged or whether a document differed from those generally issued in the country of origin. The Administrative Court had found that the summonses bore markings untypical of documents such as summonses to questioning. Therefore the domestic courts and authorities had considered that the evidentiary value of the summonses was questionable and did not constitute a reliable basis for connecting the first applicant with the matter at issue. Moreover, the first applicant had been kidnapped at the beginning of 2009 while the summonses had been dated January-February 2010, that was, one year after the kidnapping. 33.     The Government observed that the first applicant’s work as a driver in 2007 had had low societal and political significance and that the first applicant had not been personally suspected of insurgency acts. In 2009 the primary purpose of the measures directed against him had been to obtain information about another person. No connection between these two incidents had been shown. 34.     The Government further observed that the Finnish authorities had found that living conditions in Ingushetia did not justify considering that the applicants needed humanitarian protection. The best interest of a child did not give any grounds to assess the matter differently in the present case. It was also possible for the applicants to move to live in another region within the Russian Federation. The Russian Constitution guaranteed citizens the freedom of movement and the freedom to choose their place of residence within its territory. A person could spend 90 days outside his or her locality of registration without registering, after which he or she could register temporarily or permanently by notifying the local authorities. The only prerequisite for registration was an address. Persons coming from the North Caucasian republics had not had any particular difficulties registering in other parts of Russia. 35.     The Government noted that both the Immigration Service and the Administrative Court had held that the applicants’ health problems could be treated in their home country. In the Russian Federation patients could receive psychiatric services and medication free of charge. Mental care was available, inter alia , at psychiatric hospitals and it was mainly institution ‑ based. Psychotherapy was available in the private sector, too. 36.     The applicants maintained that the Russian resources for free health care were insufficient and that high-standard medical treatment could not be guaranteed. They claimed that the most determinant issue was the current severity of mental illness which, in the case of the first applicant, met the threshold set. 37.     The applicants argued that there were substantial grounds to believe that the first applicant would face a real and individual risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if he were returned to Russia. The applicants would be in a vulnerable position already due to the fact they were returning to the country. There was a high risk that the first applicant would be detained upon return. The Finnish authorities had ignored the validity of the written evidence submitted to them and the real and serious threats posed by the country in question. There had been no real attempt to conduct a thorough country research illustrating the real threat. 38.     As to credibility, the applicants noted that the Finnish authorities had accepted the existence of persecution but only questioned the validity of the documents submitted. The credibility of the applicants had never been tested by inviting them to an oral hearing before the domestic courts. The fact that the first applicant had been ill-treated was supported by the evaluation made by the centre specialised in torture victims. The credibility of the first applicant’s story was thus supported also by the verification of his state of health. Also the behaviour of the runaway son of the family was a strong indication of fear. As to the validity of the documents submitted by the applicants, the Finnish authorities had not proceeded to technical tests. It was also in the best interest of the children to continue their safe life in Finland. 39.     The Court observes that Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII). However, expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. In such a case, Article 3 implies an obligation not to deport the person in question to that country (see Saadi v.   Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 125, ECHR 2008). 40.     In order to determine whether there is a risk of ill-treatment, the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of sending the applicants to Russia, bearing in mind the general situation there and their personal circumstances (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom , 30   October 1991, § 108). 41.     As argued by the Government, while the situation in Northern Caucasus is still tense, the Court does not find the general human rights situation in Russia to be of such a nature as to show, on its own, that there would be a violation of the Convention if the applicants were to return to that country. The Court has therefore to establish whether the applicants’ personal situation is such that their return to Russia would contravene Article 3 of the Convention. 42.     The Court acknowledges that, owing to the special situation in which asylum seekers often find themselves, it is frequently necessary to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to assessing the credibility of their statements and the documents submitted in support thereof. However, when information is presented which gives strong reasons to question the veracity of an asylum seeker’s submissions, the individual must provide a satisfactory explanation for the alleged discrepancies (see, among other authorities, Collins and Akasiebie v. Sweden (dec.), no. 23944/05, 8 March 2007, and Matsiukhina and Matsiukhin v. Sweden (dec.), no. 31260/04, 21   June 2005). In principle, the applicant has to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if the measure complained of were to be implemented, he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see N. v. Finland , no.   38885/02, § 167, 26 July 2005; N.A. v. the United Kingdom , no.   25904/07, § 111, 17 July 2008; and R.C. v. Sweden , no. 41827/07, § 50, 9   March 2010). Where such evidence is adduced, it is for the Government to dispel any doubts about it. 43.     The Court observes, from the outset, that the domestic authorities and courts have not questioned the applicants’ credibility other than in respect of the faxed documents called “summonses”. They found that the authenticity of these documents was impossible to verify as they were copies, and that they did not appear exactly credible. The Administrative Court found that the summonses bore markings untypical of documents such as summonses to questioning. Therefore the domestic courts and authorities considered that the evidentiary value of the summonses was questionable and did not constitute a reliable basis for connecting the first applicant with the matter at issue. The Court acknowledges that it is often difficult to establish precisely the pertinent facts in cases such as the present one. However, it accepts that, as a general principle, the national authorities are best placed to assess not just the facts but, more particularly, the credibility of witnesses since it is they who have had an opportunity to see, hear and assess the demeanour of the individual concerned. 44.     As to the applicants’ personal circumstances, the Court therefore takes note of the Government’s view that the first applicant has not shown any reason or submitted any evidence capable of showing why the Russian authorities would have a particular interest in him. As the Administrative Court noted, the simple fact that the first applicant had been a driver for some insurgents in 2007 did not seem the sort of activity which would arouse the interest of the Russian authorities. The acts directed against him in 2009 were aimed at obtaining information from him about the others but did not mean that he was personally suspected of any illegal activism himself. As the applicants had not been otherwise active and had no other contact with the insurgents, the Administrative Court concluded that it was unlikely that the Russian authorities would persecute the applicants if returned to Russia. 45.     The Court finds that the matter at stake was thoroughly examined by the domestic courts which took into account all relevant and available information. As the applicants’ credibility was not generally questioned, the Administrative Court did not deem it necessary to hold an oral hearing. 46.     As to the applicants’ health, the Court notes that, according to country information, medical treatment for mental illnesses both at in ‑ patient and out-patient level is available in Russia. A variety of medicines for mental illnesses is also available. It must therefore be considered that the applicants have access to treatment for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in Russia (see N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, §§   46-51, ECHR 2008; and Bensaid v. the United Kingdom , no. 44599/98, §§ 36-40, ECHR 2001 ‑ I). On the basis of the above facts, the Court finds that there are no such personal circumstances which would put the applicants at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if removed to Russia. 47.     The Court further notes that the applicants implied that the execution of the first applicant’s removal from Finland would already in itself present a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention due to the severity of his mental health problems. The Court acknowledges that a deportee’s severe mental health problems at the moment of the enforcement of a deportation order may have an effect on its enforcement. However, the Government have been able to show that in Finland the police have to take into account an applicant’s state of health at the time of the removal and, if necessary, to postpone its enforcement. This practice was demonstrated in the context of the case S.B. v. Finland (dec.), no. 17200/11, § 38, 24   June   2014. There are no reasons to believe that this practice of assessing an appropriate state of health, which has a legal basis both in the domestic law as well as in EU law, will not continue in the future (see paragraph 25 above). The Court is therefore assured that the domestic law provides sufficient safeguards to conclude that the first applicant’s mental health condition would be taken into account at the time of the removal and that the removal would be postponed, if the first applicant’s health so required. 48.     Having regard to all of the above, the Court concludes that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would be removed from Finland in a manner contrary to the Convention or that they would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if deported to the Russian Federation in the current circumstances. Accordingly, the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded and declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 49.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. B.     Complaint under Article 8 of the Convention 50.     The applicants complained that their right to respect for family life would be violated if they were expelled to Russia while their minor son had gone missing in Finland. 51.     Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 52.     The Government noted that, according to the information available to it, the third applicant had been found on 18 September 2013 and subsequently reunited with the other applicants. The applicants had thus contravened the Rules of Court by failing to tell the Court that their son had been found. The Government left it to the Court’s discretion whether the applicants’ complaint under Article 8 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention as an abuse of the right of individual application. 53.     In any event, the Government argued that the removal order against the applicants could not be enforced until the Court ruled on the matter or lifted the interim measure indicated against Finland. If one of the persons to be removed had disappeared, his or her whereabouts were not known to the authorities and the removal order could not therefore be enforced. As the third applicant had already been reunited with his family, the issue was no longer relevant. This complaint was thus manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 54.     The applicants claimed that it was a regrettable mistake that they had failed to inform the Court that their son had been found. As they did not speak any English or Finnish and as there was a lot of confusion, they had not been able to inform their lawyer of the fact. Also, the son had been returned to the reception centre only later, as his mental condition had been worrying. There was thus no longer any practical fear that Finland might act in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 55.     The Court notes that the applicants had alleged that there would be a violation of their right to respect for family life if they were expelled to Russia without their minor son, who had gone missing in Finland. However, the son was found on 18 September 2013 and subsequently reunited with the other applicants who are all still in Finland. The applicants cannot therefore be considered as victims. Moreover, the applicants have themselves noted in their observations to the Court that there was no longer any practical fear that Finland might act in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. It can therefore be considered that the applicants have expressed their will no longer to pursue their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. Accordingly, the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention must be rejected as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, by a majority, Declares the application inadmissible. Françoise Elens-Passos   Ineta Ziemele   Registrar   President