CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 janvier 2007

.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. 93 January 2007 Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC] - 60654/00 Judgment 15.1.2007 [GC] Article 37 Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Failure by the applicants to act upon respondent Government's proposals to regularise their immigration status: striking out of Article   8 complaint Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Alleged inability of members of a family to regularise their immigration status: struck out Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Police questioning touching on an application to the Court after the applicant was interviewed on Russian television: no violation Facts : Mr   and Mrs   Sisojev took up residence in Latvia in the late 1960s as Soviet nationals and their children were born there. However, following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the restoration of Latvian independence in 1991 they became stateless. Although they were subsequently granted permanent resident status in Latvia, this was revoked by a district court in 1996 on the grounds of an alleged breach of the immigration rules. The district court's decision was set aside on an appeal by the applicants. A subsequent ruling by the district court that Mrs   Sisojeva was entitled under an agreement between Latvia and Russia on arrangements for retired members of the armed forces and their families to apply for a passport as a “permanently resident non-citizen” and that her husband and their daughter were entitled to permanent residence permits was set aside in September 1999 by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the applicants had committed serious breaches of Latvian immigration law by secretly obtaining duplicate passports, registering places of residence in two different countries and supplying false information to the authorities. The regional court to which the case was remitted dismissed the applicants' applications and its decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in April 2000. The applicants were reminded by the immigration authorities that they were required to leave Latvia. In November 2003 the immigration authorities wrote to the applicants to explain the procedure Mrs   Sisojeva should follow if she wished to regularise her stay in Latvia and obtain an identity document as a stateless person, whereupon her daughter and husband could be issued with residence permits. None of the applicants complied with these instructions. The Latvian Government then informed the Court, before which the present application was by then pending, that Mr   Sisojev and their daughter could be issued with residence permits, initially for five-years and subsequently of indefinite duration. In December 2005 the immigration authorities again reminded the applicants that it was open to them to regularise their stay, but received no response. The applicants stated that, in the interim, Mrs   Sisojeva had been summoned to the regional headquarters of the security police and questioned about her application to the Court and an interview she had given to a Russian television channel. The applicants continue to reside in Latvia without valid resident permits. Law : Article   8 – The Court acknowledged that, if not from the time of the removal of their names from the register of residents in May 1996, then at the latest from the time of the final dismissal of their appeal by the Supreme Court in April 2000, the applicants had experienced a period of insecurity and legal uncertainty in Latvia that had continued until November 2003. Nevertheless, they had been guilty of obtaining duplicate passports and registering themselves as resident in both Russia and Latvia without informing the Latvian authorities, although they had undoubtedly been aware that their conduct was illegal. The problems the applicants had experienced following the cancellation of their initial residence permits had thus stemmed to a large extent from their own actions. The first concrete proposal aimed at regularising the applicants' stay had been made in November 2003, so they could not claim the existence of uncertainty after that date. Moreover, despite having long been an illegal resident in Latvia, Mr   Sisojev had been and continued to be in paid employment and his daughter had been able to complete a course of higher education and obtain a degree. The applicants did not face any real and imminent risk of deportation. Despite repeated reminders from the immigration authorities, they had not acted on their recommendations or made any attempt to get in touch to try to find a solution to any difficulties they might have in obtaining the required documents. Nor was there any indication that the Latvian Government had acted in bad faith. In conclusion, the Court found that the options outlined by the Latvian authorities for regularising the applicants' situation had been adequate and sufficient to remedy their complaint of a violation of Article   8. The matter giving rise to the complaint could therefore be considered to be “resolved”. C onclusion : striking out (sixteen votes to one). Article   34 – It was of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition that applicants or potential applicants were able to communicate freely with the Court without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints. The word “pressure” had to be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants but also other improper indirect acts or acts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy. Mrs   Sisojeva could reasonably have expected the police or the prosecuting authorities to take an interest in her allegations on Russian television of corruption on the part of immigration officials and the questioning was in accordance with Latvian legislation allowing the security police to investigate corruption offences. Accordingly, the Court accepted the Government's explanation that the main focus of the questioning had been the allegation of corruption, not the proceedings before the Court. Nevertheless, in questioning Mrs   Sisojeva about her reasons for lodging an application with the Court, the police officer had exceeded the remit of the investigation by a considerable margin. In that connection, the Court reiterated that, even if a Government had reason to believe that, in a particular case, the right of individual petition was being abused, the appropriate course was to alert it and inform it of their misgivings. However, having regard to all the circumstances – including the incidental nature of the questioning, the polite manner in which it was conducted and the absence of any attempt to force Mrs   Sisojeva to give evidence or to disclose the names of the allegedly corrupt officials – there was insufficient evidence to conclude that her questioning should be regarded as a form of “pressure”, “intimidation” or “harassment” which might have induced the applicants to withdraw or modify their application or hindered them in any other way in the exercise of their right of individual petition. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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