CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juin 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 109 June 2008 Petropavlovskis v. Latvia (dec.) - 44230/06 Decision 3.6.2008 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Refusal of nationality application by the Cabinet of Ministers, allegedly on national interest grounds: admissible The applicant, who was permanently resident in Latvia, applied for Latvian nationality through naturalisation. Although the Naturalisation Board certified that he fulfilled the requirements of the Citizenship Act, his application was refused by the Cabinet of Ministers. In the proceedings on the applicant’s appeal against that decision, a lawyer acting for the Cabinet of Ministers explained that the reason for the refusal was that the applicant had made statements to the media that were contrary to the national interest and had sought to destabilise the country. This was a reference to the fact that the applicant had been actively involved in protests against changes in the State education system which in his view were gradually eroding the rights of the Russian speaking minority to education in their own language. The domestic courts declined to hear the applicant’s appeal on the merits as they considered that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers was of a political nature and so not subject to examination by the judiciary. The applicant complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that he had arbitrarily been denied Latvian citizenship as a punitive measure because he had expressed his views and engaged in peaceful assembly. He also complained of a lack of an effective domestic remedy. Admissible under Articles 10, 11 and 13. The Government’s objection that the subject matter of the complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention was joined to the merits.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes