FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 47772/11
Rimma FROLOVA
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Robert Spano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 August 2011,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Ms Rimma Frolova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1935 and lives in Heinola. She was represented before the Court by Mr Martti Kainulainen, a lawyer practising in Heinola.
2. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 9 December 2009 the applicant arrived in Finland with a tourist visa valid for 90 days. She had not been granted a residence permit in St. Petersburg before arriving in Finland.
5. Before her arrival in Finland, the applicant had twice applied, together with her daughter, for a residence permit on the basis of family ties.
6. The first application was lodged on 20 January 2005. On 19 September 2005 the Directorate of Immigration (ulkomaalaisvirasto, utlänningsverket) refused her application as the case did not concern the continuation of uninterrupted family life, nor was the applicant fully dependent on her daughter living in Finland. On 12 October 2005 the Directorate of Immigration refused the applicant’s request for rectification. On 12 September 2006 the Kouvola Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen) rejected the applicant’s appeal and on 13 March 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.
7. The second application was lodged on 16 June 2008. On 6 February 2009 the Finnish Immigration Service (Maahanmuuttovirasto, Migrationsverket; the former Directorate of Immigration) refused her application as the case did not concern the continuation of uninterrupted family life, nor was the applicant fully dependent on her daughter living in Finland. On 23 March 2009 the Immigration Service refused the applicant’s request for rectification. On 5 March 2010 the Kouvola Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
8. After her arrival in Finland, the applicant lodged her third application for a residence permit on 19 February 2010. She claimed, inter alia, that her daughter, who lives in Finland and is a Finnish citizen, is her family member and that, due to her medical condition, she is fully dependent on her daughter.
9. On 10 June 2011 the Immigration Service refused the applicant’s application for a residence permit and ordered her removal to Russia. The Immigration Service found that according to the domestic law, the applicant was not considered to be her daughter’s family member but her relative. A residence permit could be issued to a relative only if the Finnish citizen living in Finland planned to continue uninterrupted family life with the relative or if the relative was fully dependent on the Finnish citizen living in Finland. The family life between the applicant and her daughter had been interrupted in 1992 when the latter had moved to Finland. After having lived so many years apart, it was not possible to consider that their family life was uninterrupted. As to the dependency, the Immigration Service found that the applicant had received in Russia the medical and other care she needed and that this care would continue to be available to her in the future. The applicant was thus not fully dependent on her daughter.
10. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Kouvola Administrative Court, requesting a stay on removal.
11. On 25 July 2011 the Kouvola Administrative Court refused the applicant’s request to stay the removal.
12. On 3 August 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the Court, requesting that the removal to Russia be stayed. On 4 August 2011 the Court indicated an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. On 17 October 2011 the case was communicated to the Government under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
13. On 4 April 2012 the Kouvola Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on the same grounds as the Immigration Service.
14. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a further appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.
15. On 1 October 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court granted the applicant leave to appeal and quashed the lower instance decisions. It referred the case back to the Immigration Service for granting the applicant a residence permit.
16. On 24 October 2013 the Immigration Service granted the applicant a continuous residence permit for a period of one year on the basis of family ties. This permit is renewable, provided that the grounds for granting it still exist.
COMPLAINTS
17. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that she was fully dependent on her family in Finland and that her removal to Russia would have serious consequences.
18. She complained under Article 13 of the Convention that she should be allowed to stay in Finland until her proceedings had been terminated in order to have an effective remedy.
19. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention that the decision of the Finnish Immigration Service and similar decisions discriminated against Russian people.
THE LAW
20. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that she was fully dependent on her family in Finland and that her removal to Russia would have serious consequences.
21. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
22. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
23. On 28 October 2013 the Government informed the Court that, on 24 October 2013, the Finnish Immigration Service had granted the applicant a continuous residence permit in Finland which was renewable. Consequently, the Government suggested that the circumstances allowed the Court to reach the conclusion that the matter had been resolved, thereby justifying the discontinuation of the examination of this part of the application. The Government invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases and to lift the interim measure indicated on 4 August 2011.
24. On 26 November 2013 the applicant replied that she had no more claims in the matter and that the application could be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
25. Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
(b) the matter has been resolved; or
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
26. The Court notes that the domestic proceedings have ended and that the applicant has been granted a continuous residence permit which is renewable. She is thus no longer subject to an expulsion order.
27. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that the matter giving rise to the complaints against Finland under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention can now be considered to be “resolved” (see F.S. and Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 57264/09, 13 December 2011). Therefore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of this part of the case.
28. In view of the above, it is appropriate to lift the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to strike this part of the case out of the list.
29. As concerns the applicant’s further complaints under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols and that they are thus manifestly ill-founded.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy