Uitzettingsbevel voor ex-militair uit Sovietleger en zijn gezin na 32 jaar in Uksana - Mensenrechtenhof beoordeelt Letland (en)

Press release issued by the Registrar

GRAND CHAMBER HEARING

SISOJEVA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 24 May 2006 at 9 a.m. in the case of Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (application no. 60654/00).

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 Aluksne (Latvia).

Summary of the facts

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 Pilson?bas un imigr?cijas departaments – “the Department”) to obtain permanent resident status and to be entered in the register of residents. Aluksne 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 had done likewise in 1995. An administrative penalty was imposed on the applicants, and Aluksne 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 Pilson?bas un migr?cijas lietu p?rvalde – “the Directorate”) to issue the applicants with permanent residence permits under the agreement.

On 28 July 1998 Aluksne 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.

Complaints

The applicants complain about the Latvian authorities’ refusal to regularise their status in Latvia and the questioning of Svetlana Sisojeva by the police. They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 34 (right of individual petition) of the European Court of Human Rights.

Procedure

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 September 2000 and declared partly admissible on 28 February 2002.

In its Chamber judgment of 16 June 2005 the European Court of Human Rights 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.

On 30 November 2005, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber (under Article 43¹ of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court) at the request of the Government.

Composition of the Court The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:

Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President,

Jean-Paul Costa (French),

Nicolas Bratza (British),

Boštjan M. Zupan?i? (Slovenian),

Lucius Caflisch (Swiss)²,

Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese),

Riza Türmen (Turkish)

Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian),

Karel Jungwiert (Czech),

Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian),

Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian),

Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese),

Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish),

Renate Jaeger (German),

David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic),

Dragoljub Popovi? (citizen of Serbia and Montenegro), judges,

Jautrite Briede (Latvian), ad hoc judge,

Matti Pellonpää (Finnish),

Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian),

Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), substitute judges,

and also Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar.

Representatives of the parties

Government of Latvia:

Inga Reine, Agent,

Sandra Kaulina, Counsel,

Marta Zvaune, Kaspars ?boli?š, Advisers;

Government of the Russian Federation :

Pavel Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation before the Court,

Yury Berestnev, Dmitry Spirin, Counsel,

Mikhail Vinogradov, Adviser;

Applicants: Vitaly Portnov, Galina Nilus, Counsel,

Yulia Borisova, Marianna Samsonova, Advisers.

After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.

***

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.