Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia

Parties (including notable third parties)

Mrs Svetlana Sisojeva, Mr Arkady Sisojev and Miss Aksana Sisojeva (The Applicants); The Latvian Government (The Respondent); The Russian Government (Third Party Intervener)

---

Summary of Facts

The Applicants are a married couple (first and second Applicants) who moved to Latvia when it was part of the Soviet Union, and their daughter (third Applicant), was born in Latvia in 1978. The second Applicant served in the Soviet armed forces while stationed in Latvia. After the USSR’s collapse and Latvia’s independence in 1991, the Applicants, who were formerly Soviet nationals, became stateless.

In 1993, the first and second Applicants applied for permanent resident status and registration in the Latvian residents’ register but were granted only temporary permits. They appealed this decision, and domestic courts ruled in their favour, leading to their registration as permanent residents. In 1995, the authorities discovered that the first two Applicants had obtained former Soviet passports and registered residences in Russia, and later the third Applicant did the same. This resulted in administrative penalties and the authorities requesting to reopen court proceedings due to newly discovered circumstances indicating fraud, which was subsequently granted. The District Court ordered their removal from the register, but this was later quashed on appeal. Meanwhile, the second and third Applicants acquired Russian nationality and passports in 1996.

In 1998, the Applicants submitted a further argument that they were entitled to permanent residence: the second and third Applicants under the Russian-Latvian agreement on retired Russian military personnel, and the first Applicant (who remained stateless) as a ‘permanently resident non-citizen’ under the Non-Citizens Act. The first-instance court accepted these arguments, noting their long-term residence and the second Applicant’s inclusion on the official list of retired Russian servicemen entitled to remain in Latvia. The authorities appealed, but the Regional Court upheld the judgment.

On appeal to the Senate of the Supreme Court, the lower court judgments were later overturned, with the Senate finding that obtaining multiple passports, registering residences in two countries, and providing false information breached Latvian immigration law. It also applied section 1(3)(5) of the Non-Citizens Act, which bars non-citizen status for persons registered in a Commonwealth of Independent States member as of 1 July 1992 (of which Russia is a member). All appeals were dismissed by April 2000, and the authorities reminded the Applicants they were required to leave Latvia.

In 2003, the authorities offered to regularise the Applicants’ status following the communication of the case to the European Court of Human Rights, and provided the specific grounds on which this could be achieved: the first Applicant could obtain the status of a stateless person and obtain an identity document, while the second and third Applicants could receive temporary residence permits, conditional on the first Applicant completing the formalities. The Applicants refused, instead insisting on their original request for non-citizen status for the first Applicant and permanent residence for the other Applicants. The authorities reiterated its prior offer, and in 2005 the Cabinet of Ministers instructed that five-year temporary permits be issued to the second and third Applicants, after which they could apply for permanent residence. The Applicants again declined to pursue these mechanisms.

At the time of the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, the Applicants remained in Latvia without valid permits.

Prior to the referral to the Grand Chamber, the Chamber (First Section) found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, holding that making the second and third Applicants’ status dependent on the first Applicant’s actions and the prolonged insecurity failed to strike a fair balance between immigration control and private life, and was not ‘necessary in a democratic society’ (paragraph 110).

In addition, in 2002, the first Applicant was questioned by security police about her application to the European Court of Human Rights and comments to Russian media regarding alleged bribery of officials. This element was not considered in the First Section judgment constitute new circumstances submitted before the Grand Chamber.

---

Legal Arguments

Legal Arguments by the Applicants

The Applicants alleged a violation of Article 8 ECHR due to their inability to regularise their status and the prolonged uncertainty this caused. Responding to the Government’s request under Article 34 ECHR to strike the case from the list on the basis of measures taken to help them regularise their stay, the Applicants argued they remained ‘victims’ under Article 8 within the meaning of Article 34 because those measures were inadequate. Relying on Eckle v. Germany, the Applicants submitted that a measure favourable to an Applicant does not remove victim status unless the authorities both acknowledge and afford redress for the violation – conditions they claimed were not met.

The Applicants contended that the Latvian authorities had done nothing to acknowledge a breach of Article 8 and that none of the proposed regularisation measures constituted adequate redress. They subsequently reiterated their original request for permanent non-citizen status for the first Applicant and permanent residence permits for the second and third Applicants, arguing that the first Applicant met the requirements of Section 1(1) of the Non-Citizens Act by having her registered residence in Latvia on 1 July 1992, while the second and third Applicants claimed entitlement under the Russian-Latvian agreement of 30 April 1994. The Applicants maintained that they were being forced by the Government to accept less than what they were legally entitled to.

The Applicants further argued that the measures failed to compensate for years of uncertainty, anguish, and distress, as well as a continuing risk of deportation. They highlighted practical difficulties caused by their lack of permanent residence in Latvia, including loss of social security benefits, inability to buy medicines at reduced rates, obtain driving licences, or complete civil-law transactions. The Applicants concluded that issuing a residence permit could not constitute adequate redress for these violations.

The Applicants also complained under Article 34, arguing that the 2002 questioning by security police interfered with their right of individual petition. They further requested the Court to consider raising on its own motion Article 18 of the Convention, arguing the State's actions pursued an improper aim.

Legal Arguments by the Respondent

The Latvian Government argued the case should be struck out because measures taken had intended to resolve the matter, disputing the Applicants’ victim status.

On the merits of Article 8, the Government referred to the Court’s settled caselaw that the regularisation of an Applicant’s stay is generally sufficient to remedy an Article 8 complaint. The Government also cited Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, intending to support the argument that the Applicants could not claim victim status without a deportation order and that, in this case, the Applicants faced no real risk of deportation, as earlier letters reminding of their obligation to leave were unenforceable and any removal order would be appealable.

The Government maintained they had repeatedly offered clear, specific, and effective regularisation arrangements, including the 2005 decree allowing the second and third Applicants to obtain temporary permits independently of the first Applicant. The Government also submitted that the Applicants’ preferred status was unavailable under domestic law, as by registering in Russia in January 1992, they invalidated their Latvian registration and fell outside the scope of the Non-Citizens Act. The Government further submitted that Article 8 does not guarantee a particular type of residence permit, and the permits offered were sufficient. The formal requirements for regularisation were legitimate and reasonable, and the Applicants’ refusal to comply was voluntary.

The Government further contended that any uncertainty and distress was largely due to the Applicants’ own fraudulent conduct in registering dual addresses, which suggested they valued a Russian address more than permanent residence in Latvia. They argued the removal from the register was lawful and questioned the seriousness of the Applicants’ situation, noting that they acquired property and the third Applicant completed higher education despite their irregular status. In conclusion, the Government asserted there had been no interference with private or family life and, alternatively, that the Applicants could no longer claim to be victims under Article 8.

Third Party Intervention

The Russian Government supported the Applicants’ arguments, arguing they remained victims under Article 8 because Latvia had neither acknowledged a violation nor provided redress, which they said required monetary compensation. The Russian Government considered the measures taken inadequate, noting that the second and third Applicants were offered only temporary permits despite being entitled to permanent residence under the 1994 Russian-Latvian agreement, and that their status still depended on the first Applicant. They also cited Slivenko v. Latvia, claiming the Applicants were victims of political changes beyond their control and that their ordeal reflected a broader anti-Russian policy. Concerning Article 34 ECHR, the Russian Government submitted that the interview of the Applicant was improper and aimed at breaching the right of individual petition. The Russian Government also requested that the Court to raise on its own motion Article 18 of the Convention.

Outcome

The Grand Chamber’s assessment proceeded from the Chamber's 2005 judgment, which had found a violation of Article 8. The Court began by emphasising the subsidiary nature of the Convention system and addressed the Applicants’ claim that domestic law governing the Applicants’ residence entitlements had been wrongly applied. It reiterated that its role under Article 19 of the Convention is limited to ensuring compliance with the Convention, not correcting alleged errors of fact or law by national courts. The Court noted that domestic authorities have discretion in implementing Convention rights, and that it will only intervene where there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, which was not found in this case.

The Court explained that this principle applies equally to immigration matters, reaffirming that Article 8 does not guarantee a right to a specific type of residence permit. As long as the permit granted allows residence and respect for private and family life, the requirements of Article 8 are met, and the Court emphasised that ‘is not empowered to rule on whether the individual concerned should be granted one particular legal status rather than another’ (paragraph 91).

On victim status under Article 34, the Court clarified that a victim must be directly affected by the act or omission in question and that it is ‘not therefore possible to claim to be a ‘victim’ of an act which is deprived, temporarily or permanently, of any legal effect’ (paragraph 92). It further noted that an Applicant cannot claim victim status if a deportation measure is unenforceable or indefinitely stayed, and where any attempt to proceed with deportation could be appealed before domestic courts.

In this case, the Court acknowledged that the Applicants experienced legal uncertainty in Latvia from at least April 2000 until November 2003. However, it found that their situation was not substantially more precarious than similar cases. The Court also noted that the Applicants’ actions in registering their residence in Russia suggested they considered returning to Russia an option, and that the resulting penalties must be largely considered the result of their own actions. Furthermore, the Court found relevant that Latvian authorities’ efforts to regularise their status began in November 2003, which it found to reduce any claim of ongoing uncertainty after that date. The Court also noted that despite their irregular status, one Applicant maintained paid employment, and another completed higher education, indicating that their private and family life was not severely disrupted. Consequently, the Court found no objective justification for continuing to examine the complaint under Article 8.

In determining whether to strike the case from its list according to Article 37(1) of the Convention, the Court assessed whether the Applicants still faced a risk of deportation, and whether the measures taken by the authorities constituted sufficient redress for the Applicants. For the former consideration, the Court noted that the Applicants no longer faced a real and imminent risk of deportation as the second and third Applicants had been granted five-year temporary residence permits, and the first Applicant could regularise her status by obtaining an identity document for stateless persons and a permanent residence permit. It also noted that the regularisation of the second and third Applicants' status was no longer contingent on that of the first Applicant. The Court found that these measures allow the Applicants to remain in Latvia lawfully and maintain their private and family life.

Concerning the element of redress, the Court first observed that the Applicants had made no effort to act on the authorities’ recommendations to pursue regularisation. The Court also noted that the Applicants' own actions in obtaining dual registration had contributed significantly to their prolonged uncertainty.  It subsequently concluded that the measures offered by the Latvian authorities were not in bad faith and were adequate and sufficient to remedy the complaint. Accordingly, the Grand Chamber held by sixteen votes to one that the matter had been resolved, and the application was struck out insofar as it related to Article 8. Judge Zupančič dissented, arguing that the Applicants should not have lost victim status, citing similar reasoning in two prior First Section judgments concerning Latvia.

The Court later examined whether questioning of the first Applicant by security police breached Article 34. It found the officer’s questions about the Applicant’s reasons for applying to the Court unnecessary and beyond the scope of the investigation, but noted there was no evidence of intimidation, pressure, or harassment, and unanimously concluded that Latvia had not failed to comply with its obligations.

The Court found no reason to raise Article 18 on its own motion.

International, Regional and Domestic Instruments and Provisions Cited

Source	Instrument name	Provisions cited
Regional	European Convention on Human Rights	Articles 8, 18, 34, 37(1), 43
Domestic	Non-Citizens Act 1998	s.1
Domestic	Status of Stateless Persons Act 2004	s.2 (1), s.4, s.6(1) and (2), s.7(2), s.38, s.40
Domestic	Immigration Act 2003	s.1, s.23(3), s.24, s.32(3), s.33(2), s.40 (1) and (2), s.41, s.42, s.47
Domestic	The Russian-Latvian agreement of 30 April 1994	Article 2
Domestic	Regulatory Offences Code	s. 187, s.190-3

UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines cited

This case does not cite UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines.

Available commentary

No commentary available.