CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 janvier 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .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     053   25.1.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   Slivenko and Others v. Latvia declared partly admissible   The European Court of Human Rights has declared the case of Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (application no. 48321/99) partly admissible.   In a Grand Chamber decision, which has today been notified to the parties, the Court declared admissible the complaints of Tatjana and Karina Slivenko under Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The remainder of the complaints were declared inadmissible.   A copy of the decision, which is available in English and in French, can be found on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Principal facts   The applicants are all of Russian origin. Tatjana Slivenko was born in 1959 in Estonia and moved to Latvia when she was one month old. Her husband Nikolaj Slivenko, born in 1952, was transferred to Latvia in 1977 to serve as a Soviet military officer. They married in 1980. Their daughter, Karina Slivenko, was born in 1981. All three were permanent residents of Latvia and lived in Riga.   After Latvia’s independence in 1991, Tatjana Slivenko’s parents, herself and her daughter were entered in the register of Latvian residents as “ex-USSR citizens”. In 1994, Nikolaj Slivenko, who still held Russian citizenship, retired from the Russian army and applied for a temporary residence permit. The authorities refused, relying on the fact that Soviet military officers and their families were required to leave Latvian territory, under the terms of the Latvian-Russian treaty on the withdrawal of the Russian troops of 30 April 1994 (“the 1994 treaty”). The immigration authorities annulled Tatjana and Karina Slivenko’s entry in the register of Latvian residents.   On 20 August 1996 the immigration authorities issued a deportation order in respect of the applicants.   On an unspecified date in 1996 Nikolaj Slivenko moved to Russia, while his wife and daughter remained in Latvia. Tatjana Slivenko appealed unsuccessfully against the deportation order both in her own name and on behalf of her daughter. On 29 October 1998 they were detained in a centre for illegal immigrants, given their failure to comply with the expulsion order and, on 16 March 1999, Karina Slivenko was arrested and detained for 30 hours in a centre for illegal immigrants.   On 11 July 1999 Tatjana and Karina Slivenko joined Nikolaj Slivenko. By that time, Karina had completed her secondary education in Latvia. On an unspecified date in 2001 they adopted Russian citizenship as former nationals of the USSR. All three applicants now live in Kursk (the Russian Federation).   According to the applicants, Tatjana and Karina Slivenko were unable to visit Tatjana’s parents, who, they claim, were seriously ill, because their deportation order prohibited their entry to Latvia for five years (until 20 August 2001). After that date, they obtained visas permitting their stay in Latvia for no more than 90 days a year. As Nikolaj Slivenko had left Latvia voluntarily, the prohibition on entry to Latvia had not been extended to him and he was permitted to visit Latvia several times in the period from 1996 to 2001.     Complaints   The applicants complain, under Article 8, about their removal from Latvia and, under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, that they were removed from Latvia as members of the Russian-speaking ethnic minority and the family of a former Russian military officer. They complain that they were treated differently from other non-original Latvian residents in that they were not able to keep the status of “ex-USSR citizens” under the Status of Former USSR Citizens Act, which would have precluded their expulsion. They also rely on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Tatjana and Karina Slivenko further complain under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 about the alleged unlawfulness of their detention. They submit that their deportation breached Articles 2 (freedom of movement), 3 (prohibition of expulsion of nationals) and 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and that the conditions of their detention breached Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).   Karina Slivenko also contends, under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), that her detention and the constant fear for her liberty and security as a result of the proceedings concerning her deportation, prevented her from adequately pursuing her studies at secondary school.   The Court’s decision [1]   The Court decided that the applicants’ removal from Latvia by way of implementation of the 1994 treaty did not preclude the Court from examining the case.   The Court declared:   admissible - Tatjana and Karina Slivenko’s complaints under Articles 5, 8 and 14; inadmissible - the remainder of the Tatjana and Karina Slivenko’s complaints, on the ground that they had not exhausted domestic remedies, or that they had submitted their complaints out of time, or that those complaints had been incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, or that the complaints had been unsubstantiated; inadmissible - Nikolaj Slivenko’s complaints, on the ground that he had not exhausted domestic remedies, and that he had left Latvia before the Convention entered into force in Latvia (on 27 June 1997).   ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.