Svetlana Sisojeva and others v Latvia
PRINCIPAL FACTS
Svetlana (the first applicant) and Arkady (the second applicant) Sisojevs arrived in Latvia in the late nineteen-sixties. Arkady Sisojev was a member of the Soviet armed forces; he was discharged in November 1989. Both Sisojevs' daughters - Tatjana (the third applicant) and Aksana (the fourth applicant) – were born in Latvia.
In 1993, the first applicant, the second applicant and the third applicant applied to the Latvian Interior Ministry's Nationality and Immigration Department ("the Department") to obtain permanent resident status and to be entered in the register of residents. The Department, however, following the completion of the litigation, issued only short-term residence permits and entered the applicants into the register of residents.
In 1995, the Department discovered that the first three applicants and Aksana Sisojeva had each obtained two former Soviet passports in years 1992 and 1995 respectively and had thus been able to have their place of residence registered in Russia as well as in Latvia. The Department filed a claim in the relevant district court to review the decision on entering the applicants in the Register of Residents owing to the newly discovered circumstances.
In 1996, the second applicant and the fourth applicant obtained Russian citizenship.
On 12 April 2000, the Senate of the Supreme Court gave its final judgment. According to the Senate, the two secretly obtained passports, the registration of residence in two countries, the concealing of the second passport and the provision of incorrect information to institutions of public administration in the application for legalisation of stay in the country, constitute a serious offence against Latvian law with respect to immigration. Additionally the Senate referred to paragraph 5 of Part 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the status of the citizens of the former USSR who do not have citizenship either of Latvia or any other state, which provides that the non-citizen's status cannot be granted to individuals who are registered in any of the CIS countries prior to 1 July 1992.
In August 2000, the applicants filed a complaint with the Court claiming alleged offences against Article 6 (the right to a fair trial), Article 8 (the right to respect for family and private life), Article 34 (the right to communicate unhindered with the Court) of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol 4 (the right to freedom of movement). With a partial decision of 9 November 2000, the Court rejected the complaints on the alleged offences against Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol 4. On 28 February the Court rejected the complaint with respect to the fourth applicant, since in 1993 she had married a Latvian citizen, which entitled her to a permanent residence permit in Latvia. The complaints of the three other applicants with respect to the alleged offences against Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention were accepted for further review on their merit. On 19 September 2002, a hearing of the Court Chamber in the case was held.
Regarding the third party, Russia became involved in the case.
The expulsion order with respect to the applicants was never executed, and since November 2003 the applicants were repeatedly invited to legalise their status in Latvia and informed about the procedure for submission and processing of documents.
On 22 March 2005, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a decision requiring the Minister of the Interior to issue a temporary residence permit for a period of five years to Aksana Sisojeva and Arkady Sisojev on the basis of Part 3 of Article 23 of the Immigration Law.
On 29 March 2005, the President of the Court Chamber advised that the additional documents mailed by the Government on 22 March will not be added to the case, since, according to the President, the abovementioned documents were submitted when the term for submitting written explanations had already expired.
On 16 June 2005, the Court Chamber announced its judgment. With five votes against two the Court Chamber acknowledged that an offence against Article 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for family and private life) has taken place. The Court concluded that the contested restriction has been determined by the Law (Part 1 of Article 1 of the Law On the Status of Former USSR Citizens Who are not Citizens of Latvia or Any Other State and Article 35 of the once effective Law On the Entry and Residence of Foreign Citizens and Stateless Persons in the Republic of Latvia); therefore, the purpose of the respective measures had been "prescribed by the law" and it had a "legitimate purpose. Evaluating the commensurability of the interference, the Court Chamber considered that the interference in the private life of the applicants has not been commensurable. With respect to possibilities for the applicants to legalise their status in Latvia, the Court Chamber indicated that legalisation of stay of the second and fourth applicants depends on the status granted to the first applicant, i.e. the last two cannot legalise their status unless the first applicant does it. The Court Chamber also considered that the applicants had suffered as a result of the long period of uncertainty and judicial insecurity. Thus, with five votes against two, the Court Chamber acknowledged that offence against Article 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for family and private life) has taken place. With respect to Article 34 of the Convention (the right to communicate with the Court unhindered), the Court Chamber, with six votes against one recognised that Latvia has complied with its rights arising from Article 34 of the Convention (the right to communicate with the Court unhindered).
The Government of Latvia decided to appeal the judgment and on 16 September 2005, filed a request with the Court to relegate the case to the Grand Chamber. On 1 December 2005, information was received from the Court about relegating the complaint for review by the Grand Chamber of the Court, and on 24 May 2006, a court hearing in the case took place.
