CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 juin 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCFF87D65 { margin-left:27.6pt; padding-left:8.4pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s8408AAD1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 333 16.6.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SISOJEVA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (application no. 60654/00).   The Court held   by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and by six votes to one that the Latvian Government had complied with their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded each of the applicants 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Svetlana Sisojeva, her husband Arkady Sisojev and their daughter Aksana Sisojeva, were born in 1949, 1946 and 1978 respectively. Mr Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva are Russian nationals, while Svetlana Sisojeva has no nationality. All three live in Alūksne (Latvia).   Mr Sisojev, who was a soldier in the Soviet army, was stationed in Latvia in 1968 and served there until he was demobilised in 1989. His wife came to Latvia in 1969 and their daughter was born there. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the restoration of Latvia’s independence in 1991, the applicants, who had previously been Soviet nationals, became stateless.   In 1993 Mr Sisojev and his wife applied to the Latvian Interior Ministry’s Nationality and Immigration Department ( Iekšlietu ministrijas Pilsonības un imigrācijas departaments – “the Department”) to obtain permanent resident status and to be entered in the register of residents. The Alūksne District Court of First Instance allowed their application for entry in the register.   In 1995 the Department discovered that Mr Sisojev and his wife had each been issued with two former Soviet passports in 1992 and had thus been able to have their place of residence registered in Russia as well as in Latvia. Aksana Sisojeva had done likewise in 1995. An administrative penalty was imposed on the applicants, and the Alūksne District Court ordered the removal of their names from the register of residents in 1996. That decision was set aside on an appeal by the applicants, and in August 1996 Mr Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva applied for and obtained Russian nationality.   In 1998 the Joint Committee for the implementation of the agreement between Latvia and Russia on the social protection of retired members of the Russian armed forces and their family members residing in Latvia requested the Interior Ministry’s Directorate for Nationality and Migration Affairs ( Iekšlietu ministrijas Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvalde – “the Directorate”) to issue the applicants with permanent residence permits under the agreement.   On 28 July 1998 Alūksne District Court held that Mrs Sisojeva was entitled to apply for a passport as a “permanently resident non-citizen” and that Mr Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva were entitled to permanent residence permits. That decision was set aside on an appeal by the Directorate, and on 26 June 2000 the Directorate notified the applicants that they were required to leave Latvia.   In November 2003 the head of the Directorate sent the applicants a letter explaining how Svetlana Sisojeva could regularise her stay in Latvia and obtain an identity document as a stateless person, so that her daughter and husband could then be issued with residence permits. However, as they did not follow those recommendations, the applicants did not obtain residence permits.   The applicants stated that in the meantime, on 6 March 2002, Svetlana Sisojeva had been summoned to the regional headquarters of the security police, where she had been questioned about the application she had lodged with the European Court of Human Rights and about an interview she had given on the subject to a Russian television channel.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the Court on 29 August 2000 and declared partly admissible on 28 February 2002. Observations were received from the Russian Government, who had exercised their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court). A hearing took place in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 19 September 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), judges , Jautrite Briede (Latvian), ad hoc judge , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the Latvian authorities’ refusal to regularise their status in Latvia. They further submitted that the questioning of Svetlana Sisojeva by the police had hindered the exercise of their right of individual petition, in breach of Article 34.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 The Court reiterated, firstly, that the Convention did not guarantee as such any right to enter or reside in a State to individuals who were not its nationals and that Contracting States had the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. However, decisions taken by States on immigration could in some cases amount to interference with the exercise of the right to respect for private and family life as protected by Article 8.   In the applicants’ case the Court noted that no formal order for the applicants’ deportation had been made. However, it was not enough for the host State to refrain from deportation; the State had to give those concerned, if necessary by taking positive measures, the possibility of exercising their rights without interference.   The Court accordingly considered that the Latvian authorities’ prolonged refusal to recognise the applicants’ right to permanent residence in Latvia constituted interference with their right to respect for their private life.   The interference, which had been in accordance with section 1(1) of the Non-Citizens Act and section 35 of the former Aliens Act, had been intended to ensure compliance with immigration laws and had therefore pursued the legitimate aim of “prevention of disorder”.   As to whether the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court noted that although the applicants were not of Latvian origin, they had spent virtually all their lives in Latvia and had developed personal, social and economic ties there that were strong enough for them to be regarded as sufficiently integrated into Latvian society.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that only particularly serious reasons could justify the refusal to regularise the applicants’ status, but it had been unable to discern any such reasons. It further observed that in the case of Mr Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva, regularisation had been subject to Svetlana Sisojeva’s status being regularised. By making the possibility of leading a normal life contingent on circumstances beyond their control, the Latvian authorities had not taken the measures that could have been reasonably required of them.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case and, in particular, to the lengthy period during which the applicants had been in a state of uncertainty and a precarious legal position in Latvian territory, the Court considered that the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and the applicants’ interest in the protection of their rights under Article 8. It therefore held that the interference in question had not been “necessary in a democratic society” and had breached Article 8.   Article 34 In the absence of any convincing evidence, the Court was unable to verify the content of the questions put to the first applicant. However, it took as established the facts on which the documents produced by the parties concurred.   It appeared that, several days before being questioned, the first applicant had given an interview to Russian television in which she had mentioned a number of cases of corruption on the part of Directorate officials. As corruption was a serious offence, the first applicant should reasonably have expected the police or the prosecuting authorities to take an interest in her allegations; indeed, Latvian legislation empowered the security police to question individuals when investigating offences of corruption. That being so, the Court accepted that the main purpose of the questioning had been the allegation of corruption on the part of members of the Directorate and not the proceedings being pursued by the applicants before the European Court of Human Rights.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the questioning of Svetlana Sisojeva had not attained a sufficient level of severity to be regarded as “pressure”, “intimidation” or “harassment” designed to force the applicants to withdraw or modify their application, or to hinder in any other way the exercise of their right of individual petition. It accordingly concluded that Latvia had complied with its obligations under Article 34.   Judges Vajić and Briede expressed a joint dissenting opinion and Judge Kovler a partly dissenting opinion. The opinions are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.