CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 15 novembre 2006

.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 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   701 15.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASES ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The Grand Chamber panel of five judges has accepted the following cases for referral to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 [1] of the European Convention on Human Rights: Shevanova   v. Latvia (application no. 58822/00), Kaftailova v. Latvia (no. 59643/00) and Kakamoukas and others v. Greece (no. 38311/02).   Shevanova   v. Latvia Nina Shevanova is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Riga. The applicant, who has lived in Latvia for 35 years, has been subject to a deportation order since 1998.   In 1970, when she was 22, the applicant settled in Latvia for professional reasons; in 1973 she married a Latvian national, with whom she had a son. The couple divorced in 1980.   In 1981, having lost her Soviet passport, the applicant received a new passport; she found the lost passport in 1989 but failed to return it to the relevant authorities.   In 1991 the Soviet Union broke up and Mrs Shevanova found herself with no nationality. She was registered in Latvia on the list of residents as a permanent resident, and her son was granted the status of “permanent resident non-citizen” of Latvia.   In 1994 the applicant received a job offer from a Latvian bridge-building company, which offered her a crane operator’s post in Dagestan and in Ingushetia, Caucasian regions neighbouring Chechnya in the Russian Federation. Taking into consideration the difficulties arising from the increased supervision of those regions by the Russian authorities on account of the troubles in the Chechen Republic, the company advised her to obtain Russian nationality and a formal registration of residence in Russia prior to finalising her employment contract. The applicant then had a false stamp entered in her first Soviet passport (which had been found and hidden), attesting that her registration in Latvia had been cancelled. She was registered in Russia at her brother’s address, and was granted Russian nationality.   In March 1998 the applicant applied to the Department of Nationality and Migration Affairs at the Latvian Ministry of the Interior (Iekšlietu ministrijas Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvalde, “the Department”) for a passport as a “permanently resident non-citizen”. The Department then discovered the applicant’s second residence registration in Russia and learnt of the actions with regard to her previous passport, which had been lost and found. It decided on 9 April 1998 to cancel the applicant’s inclusion on the residents’ list and issued a deportation order against her, together with a five-year exclusion order.   None of the administrative and judicial appeals lodged by the applicant with a view to having the deportation order overturned was successful. In February 2001 Mrs Shevanova was arrested and placed in a detention centre for illegal immigrants pending her deportation. Following her hospitalisation arising from an attack of high blood pressure, the Department suspended the enforcement of the forced deportation order and the applicant, who was released, continued to reside in Latvia unlawfully.   After the European Court had declared this application admissible, the Latvian authorities offered in February 2005 to regularise the applicant’s situation by issuing her with a permanent residence permit, and invited her to file the necessary documents to that end. However, it appeared from the case file that to date the applicant had not submitted the necessary papers.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that the decision to deport her from Latvia amounted to a violation of her right to respect for her private and family life, guaranteed by Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.     In a judgment of 15 June 2006 (see press release no. 348), the Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   Kaftailova v. Latvia The applicant, Natella Kaftailova, is of Georgian origin. She was born in 1958 and lives in Riga (Latvia). She had Soviet nationality until 1991 and currently has no nationality.   In 1982 the applicant, who was then resident in Russia, married a Soviet civil servant, employed by the Ministry of the Interior of the USSR. The couple had a daughter in 1984 and settled in Latvia.   In July 1988 the applicant’s husband exchanged the dwelling which he had rented in Kazan (Russia) until that date against the right to rent a state apartment in Riga, into which he and his family then moved. In March 1990 the applicant, who had been registered until then in Volzhsk (Russia), cancelled her official residence registration; the following month her husband registered her, without her knowledge or consent, as resident at their family’s new address in Riga, and also registered himself at that address. Having discovered her entry on the register in question, the applicant had it cancelled on 15 June 1990. The couple divorced in October 1990.   In 1991 the Soviet Union broke up and Mrs Kaftailova found herself with no nationality.   In February 1993 the applicant was granted the right to rent a room obtained by her ex-husband in 1987, which was located in a “duty residence” and asked the Department of Nationality and Migration Affairs at the Latvian Ministry of the Interior (Iekšlietu ministrijas Pilsonības un imigrācijas departaments, “the Department”) to register her on the list of residents (Iedzīvotāju reģistrs) as a permanent citizen of Latvia. In her request, however, she indicated the address at which her ex-husband had unlawfully registered her, and not the address in Riga at which she then lived.   Initially the Department granted her request. In July 1993, however, the Department cancelled the applicant’s registration on the ground that the stamp in her passport was false. On 15 February 1994 the Department struck the applicant out of the list of residents, cancelled her personal identification code and overturned the decision granting her the right to rent the room in which she lived.   On 9 January 1995 the Department served a deportation order on the applicant, ordering her to leave Latvia with her daughter. The Department had noted that on 1 July 1992, the critical date laid down by the Law on the Entry into and Residence of Aliens and Stateless Persons in the Republic of Latvia, the applicant had not been officially registered as having any permanent residence in Latvia; in those circumstances, she ought to have applied for a residence permit within one month of that law entering into force, failing which she would be subject to a deportation order; however, the applicant had not done so.   None of the administrative and judicial appeals lodged by the applicant with a view to having her situation regularised was successful.   After the European Court had declared this application admissible, the Latvian authorities offered in January 2005 to regularise the applicant’s situation by issuing her with a permanent residence permit, and invited her to file the necessary documents to that end. However, it appeared from the case file that the applicant had not submitted the necessary papers by the date of the Court’s judgment.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that the Latvian authorities’ refusal to regularise her situation constituted a violation of her right to respect for private and family life, guaranteed by Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   In a judgment of 22 June 2006 (see press release no. 364), the Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   Kakamoukas and Others v. Greece The applicants are 58 Greek nationals.   In 1925, with a view to building an airport, the Greek State expropriated a 534,892 m 2 estate which included land belonging to the applicants’ ascendants located on the outskirts of Salonika and now falling within the jurisdiction of Kalamaria Town Council. A sum in expropriation compensation was fixed, which the State refused to pay. Ultimately the airport was built elsewhere.   In 1967 the State went ahead with expropriating the land in question with a view to building labourers’ housing. However, as the decision did not fulfil a public-interest aim it was revoked in 1972. In the same year the estate in question was designated for the construction of a sports centre, and in 1987 the Salonika prefect modified the regional development plan (ρυμοτομικό σχέδιο), which he designated as a “green area” and “sport and leisure zone”. The applicants or their ascendants brought administrative proceedings for removal of the encumbrance affecting their land. In three judgments delivered on 20 October 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court granted their request. It found that having failed for a long time to proceed with the expropriation of the land in question in furtherance of the project provided for in the development plan, the authorities were duty bound to lift the encumbrance on the properties in question.   On 30 September 1998 Kalamaria Town Council appealed against the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court. The appeal was declared inadmissible on 28 November 2001.   In 1999 the Minister for the Environment and Public Works modified the urban development plan of Kalamaria municipality in order to designate the estate in question as the site for a sport and leisure centre. On 9 September 1999 the applicants or their ascendants applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for the decision to be set aside. The application is currently pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained, among other things, about the length of the administrative proceedings to which they had been parties, namely, three years, one month and 29 days for the first set of proceedings and over seven years to date for the pending proceedings.   In a Chamber judgment of 22 June 2006 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and decided, by five votes to two, to award each applicant EUR 5,000 or EUR 8,000, depending on the case, for the non-pecuniary damage sustained, that damage not having been made good by the finding of a violation of the Convention.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   ***   Further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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.   [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.