Type: Judgment

Authority: European Authorities: European Court of human rights

Date: 12/07/2007

Subject: The Court held unanimously that the matters giving rise to these two cases had been resolved and decided to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Under Rule 43 § 4 of its Rules of Court, the Court awarded 1,000 euros (EUR) to Mrs Shevanova and EUR 886 to Mrs Kaftailova, for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available in English and French.) In these two cases the applicants, who had been living in Latvia for several years in one case and several decades in the other, became stateless following the break-up of the Soviet Union. The Latvian authorities refused to regularise their stay and made orders for their deportation which, the applicants maintained, infringed their right to respect for their private and family life. After the European Court of Human Rights had declared these applications admissible, the Latvian authorities offered in February 2005 to regularise the applicants’ situations by issuing them with a permanent residence permit, and invited them to file the necessary documents to that end. However, it appeared from the cases files that to date the applicants hads not submitted the necessary papers. The Court noted that, as matters stood, neither applicant faced a real and imminent risk of deportation, as the expulsion decisions could no longer be enforced. It further noted that the authorities had offered to regularise the situation of both applicants; they had each received a letter to that effect in 2005 which outlined the procedure to be followed. If they were to take the necessary action the applicants would be able to remain in Latvia legally and permanently, and thus lead a normal social life and maintain their relationships with their respective children. The Court observed that neither applicant had yet taken the steps indicated by the Directorate, despite being expressly invited to do so. To date, the applicants had made no attempt, however slight, to get in touch with the authorities and try to find a solution to any difficulties that might arise. In the circumstances, the Court found that the material facts complained of by the applicants had ceased to exist. It also considered that the regularisation arrangements proposed to the applicants by the Latvian authorities had constituted an adequate and sufficient remedy for their complaints under Article 8. Accordingly, the Court considered that the matters giving rise to the present applications could be considered to be “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b). Since no particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention required it to continue its examination of the applications, the Court decided to strike them out of its list of cases.

Parties: Chevanova c/ Lettonia; Kaftaïlova c/ Lettonia

Classification: Freedoms - Art. 7 Privacy