Lakatosh & Others v. Russia

Parties (including notable third parties)

Applicants: Ms Anna Stepanovna Lakatosh, Mr Pavel Iosipovich Gabor, Mr Aladar Mikhaylovich Forkosh; Respondent: The Russian Government

---

Summary of Facts

The applicants were stateless persons of Roma origin who were born in Ukraine and live in St Petersburg, Russia.

The Applicants complained under Articles 3, 5(1)(f), 5(4) and 13 of the  European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) about their detention pending their administrative removal from Russia.

The President of the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights gave notice of the Application to the Russian Government, and the Application was given priority treatment.

---

Legal Arguments

There were no legal arguments. The matter was resolved by settlement.

Outcome

The Court received settlement declarations signed by the parties. By the settlement declarations, the parties agreed:

• the Applicants would waive any further claims against Russia in respect of the facts giving rise to the application;
• the Russian Government would provide an undertaking to pay each applicant 30,000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses;
• the settlement money would be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable on the date of payment;
• the settlement money would be free of any taxes that may be applicable;
• the settlement money would be payable within three months from the date of the notification of the decision of the Court; and
• the payment would constitute the final resolution of the case.

The Court also received a request from the Applicants that the sums payable to them be transferred to their representative’s bank account in view of their inability to open a bank account in their own name because of the lack of identity documents.

The Court was satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and found no reason to justify the continued examination of the application.

The Court unanimously decided to strike the Application out of its list of cases.

International, Regional and Domestic Instruments and Provisions Cited

Source	Instrument name	Provisions cited
Regional	European Convention on Human Rights	3, 5(1)(f),4, 13

UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines cited

This case does not cite UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines.

Available commentary

Matthew Seet, ‘Strengthening the Protection of Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention in Immigration Control Proceedings: Kim v Russia’, (2015) 17(2-3) European Journal of Migration and Law 273

• The article examines the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Kim v. Russia, highlighting the particular vulnerabilities of stateless persons to arbitrary, prolonged, and cyclical detention in immigration proceedings, and advocating for stronger procedural safeguards such as statelessness determination procedures. In its commentary on Lakatosh, the article notes that the European Court of Human Rights was aware of systemic issues affecting stateless persons in Russia, referencing UNHCR’s intervention in Lakatosh. This included details of how restrictive Russian legislation exposed tens of thousands of stateless individuals to repeated arrest and detention due to their inability to legalise their stay.
• The article criticises the European Court of Human Rights in Kim for recommending only individual, rather than general, measures to prevent re-arrest and cyclical detention, arguing that the Court should have explicitly addressed the broader legislative and systemic problems identified in Lakatosh by recommending comprehensive reforms to protect all stateless persons in Russia.