CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 décembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)130 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Slivenko and others against Latvia   (Application No. 48321/99, judgment of 9 October 2003 - Grand Chamber)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the deportation of the applicants, a mother and her 18-year-old daughter, former Latvian residents of Russian origin, to Russia (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures preventing similar violations;       DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)130   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Slivenko and others against Latvia   Introductory case summary   The case concerns the deportation of the applicants, former Latvian residents of Russian origin, to Russia. The first applicant, whose father was an officer in the Soviet army, had lived in Latvia all her life. The second applicant, the daughter of the first applicant, was born in Latvia and lived there until she was expelled at the age of 18. In November 1994 the applicants' registration (as "ex-USSR citizens") in the Latvian residents' register was annulled relying on the Latvian-Russian treaty of 1994 on the withdrawal of Russian troops. The applicants' deportation was ordered in August 1996. They also lost the flat in which they had lived. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged their removal from Latvia before the domestic courts. Following several forced deportation attempts, the applicants moved to Russia in July 1999 to join the first applicant's husband and subsequently obtained Russian citizenship. The applicants' deportation order prevented them from returning to Latvia for 5 years (this prohibition expired on 20 August 2001) and then limited their visits to 90 days a year.   The Court found that the expulsion of the applicants could not be considered as necessary in a democratic society, in that they were at the material time sufficiently integrated into Latvian society where a part of their family (parents or grandparents) continue legally to reside. The Court added that the applicants' presence in Latvia could not be considered as a threat to national security simply through belonging to the family of a retired Soviet military officer (being, respectively, the daughter and granddaughter), who had retired from military service in 1986 and was not himself deemed to present any such danger (violation of Article 8).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 20   000 EUR - 20   000 EUR Paid on 23/12/2003   b) Individual measures   A friendly settlement agreement was concluded on 29 March 2006 between the parties. On 21 June 2006, the Minister of the Interior adopted a separate decision with respect to each of the applicants, granting them permanent residence permits. These decisions were communicated to the applicants accompanied by their residence permits respectively on 4 July 2006 and on 24 July 2006.   II.   General measures   The Latvian translation of the judgment of the Court has been published in the official periodical Latvijas Vēstnesis on 27 November 2003, No.167 (2932) in hard copy as well on online ( www.vestnesis.lv ) and at the website of the Government Agent ( www.mkparstavis.am.gov.lv ). The translated judgment has also been sent out to judges and a short analysis has been included in the Bench Book for judges published in 2004. The issue has also been included in the training programme for judges and assistants at administrative courts.   The administrative decisions at the basis of the violation have already been declared unlawful by the Latvian courts.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Latvia has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2009 at the 1072nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies