CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 janvier 2007

.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 } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s3DCF6A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s3D964D38 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1F58F73B { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   32 15.01.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT SISOJEVA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (application no. 60654/00).   The Court held by sixteen votes to one that the matter giving rise to the applicants’ complaint under Article 8   (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights had been resolved, and decided to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it related to that complaint; unanimously that the respondent Government had not failed to comply with their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention (right of individual petition).   (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts 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 member of the Soviet armed forces, was posted to Latvian territory in 1968 and remained there until he finished his service in 1989. His wife entered Latvian territory in 1969 and their daughter was born there. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the restoration of Latvian 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. 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 obtained 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 had done likewise in 1995. An administrative penalty was imposed on the applicants, and 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 his daughter Aksana Sisojeva applied for and obtained Russian nationality. In 1998 the Joint Committee for the implementation of the agreement between Latvia and Russia on social-welfare arrangements for retired members of the Russian armed forces and their family members resident in Latvia requested the Interior Ministry’s Nationality and Migration Directorate ( 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 reminded 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 Latvian Government then informed the European Court of Human Rights, before which the present application was pending, that Mr Sisojev and his daughter Aksana Sisojeva could be issued with residence permits valid for five years and, on expiry of that period, could obtain permanent residence permits. In December 2005 the Directorate again reminded the applicants that it was open to them to regularise their stay. No response was forthcoming from them. 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 her application to the European Court of Human Rights and about an interview she had given on the subject to a Russian television channel. As matters stand, the applicants are resident in Latvia without valid residence permits. According to the information supplied by the applicants, which has not been disputed by the Government, Svetlana Sisojeva has been unemployed since 1992, Arkady Sisojev works as a technician in a municipal communal heating plant in Alūksne and Aksana Sisojeva obtained a law degree from the Baltic Russian Institute in July 2004.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 29 August 2000 and declared admissible on 28 February 2002. A hearing on the merits took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 19 September 2002. In its Chamber judgment of 16 June 2005 (Press Release no. 333/2005), the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8 and that the Latvian Government had complied with its obligations under Article 34. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the Government. A Grand Chamber hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 24 May 2006.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian) Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Renate Jaeger (German), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , Jautrīte Briede (Latvian) , ad hoc judge , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints The applicants complained of the Latvian authorities’ refusal to regularise their status in Latvia and of the questioning of Svetlana Sisojeva by the police. They relied on Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 of the Convention   The Court acknowledged that, if not from the time of their removal from the register of residents in May 1996, then at the latest from the time of the final dismissal of their appeal on points of law in April 2000, the members of the Sisojev family had experienced a period of insecurity and legal uncertainty in Latvia lasting until November 2003.   Nevertheless, the Court observed firstly that, in 1992 and 1995, the applicants had obtained two passports each and had registered their residence in both Russia and Latvia without informing the relevant Latvian authorities, although they had undoubtedly been aware that their conduct was illegal. Their actions demonstrated that returning to Russia one day had been an option they were prepared to consider. In the circumstances, the Court took the view that the problems the applicants had experienced following the cancellation of their initial residence permits had stemmed to a large extent from their own actions.   The Court further observed that the first concrete proposal aimed at regularising the applicants’ stay had been made in November 2003, with the result that they could not claim the existence of an “uncertain situation” after that date. Lastly, it was clear from the case file that, despite having long been an illegal resident in Latvia, Mr Sisojev had been and continued to be in paid employment and his daughter Aksana had been able to complete a course of higher education and obtain a degree.   As to the applicants’ current situation, the Court noted that they did not face any real and imminent risk of deportation. Despite repeated reminders from the Directorate, none of the applicants had thus far acted on its recommendations in order to regularise their status or made any attempt, however small, to get in touch with the authorities and try to find a solution to any difficulties they might have in obtaining the required documents. The Court saw no indication, either, 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” and the Court accordingly decided to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it related to Article 8 of the Convention.   Article 34 of the Convention   The Court considered that Mrs Sisojeva could reasonably have expected the police or the prosecuting authorities to take an interest in the allegations of corruption on the part of Directorate officials which she had made during her interview on Russian television shortly before she was questioned. Moreover, the questioning had been in accordance with Latvian legislation, which allowed the security police to investigate corruption offences and gather information from the individuals concerned.   Accordingly, the Court accepted the Government’s explanation that the main focus of the questioning had been the allegation that Directorate officials had acted in a corrupt manner, rather than the proceedings being conducted by the applicants before the Court. The fact remained, however, that 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 of action was to alert the Court and inform it of their misgivings.   Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court considered that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the questioning of Mrs Sisojeva 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. It therefore found that there had been no violation of Article 34.   Judge Zupančič expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible 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] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.