Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 60
January 2004
Kolosovskiy v. Latvia (dec.) - 50183/99
Decision 29.1.2004 [Section I]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for private life
Refusal to grant a residence permit to a Russian soldier following the agree withdrawal of Soviet troops: inadmissible
The applicant, who lives in Latvia and is the son of a Soviet military officer, was deprived of Soviet nationality after the break-up of the USSR in 1991. In 1993 the Latvian authorities refused to enter the applicant in the register of Latvian residents and to issue him with a residence permit, on the ground that he was a member of the family of a Soviet military officer and lived in accommodation belonging to the Russian army. The applicant decided to take Russian nationality, enlisted in the Russian Federation army and was stationed at a military base in Latvia. He was ordered to leave Latvia as part of the mass withdrawal of the Russian armed forces under a 1994 treaty between Latvia and Russia. In 1995 an application by the applicant for a permanent residence permit was refused and his marriage and the birth of his daughter were not registered because he did not have a valid Latvian residence permit. In 1997 the Latvian authorities informed the applicant that, pursuant to the Latvian-Russian treaty and the Aliens Act, he was not entitled to a permanent residence permit. He lodged a number of appeals but without success.
Inadmissible under Article 8: (a) The Latvian authorities’ refusal to issue the applicant with a residence permit had amounted to interference with his right to respect for his private and family life; having lived in Latvia since the age of seven, he was now living there together with a woman who was lawfully and permanently resident in Latvia, and they had a daughter who, like the applicant’s father, was permanently resident there. The interference, based on the Latvian-Russian treaty on the withdrawal of Russian Federation military troops from the territory of Latvia and on the Aliens Act, had been “in accordance with the law” and had pursued a legitimate aim (see the Slivenko judgment of 9 October 2003).
As to whether the interference had been proportionate, the applicant’s professional and personal circumstances were different from those considered in the Slivenko case. He had been a serving member of the Russian armed forces stationed in Latvia at the time when the Latvian-Russian treaty had been signed, had had very close links to the Soviet army all his life and had volunteered to join the Russian Federation armed forces two years after Latvia had formally regained its independence; accordingly, he must have been aware that he was enlisting in a foreign military force that was stationed within a sovereign State and would be required to withdraw at some point. Although the applicant had developed personal and social ties in Latvia that went beyond the strictly military sphere, he had mainly lived in Russian army accommodation near the Russian military base. Nor did the applicant’s family ties play a decisive role; by the time he had started living together with his partner, he had already been formally refused a residence permit, and neither he nor his partner could have failed to realise the precarious position he was in. Furthermore, there was nothing to suggest that Latvia was the only country in which the applicant, his partner and his daughter would be able to lead a normal family life. In short, the Latvian authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation in considering that the public interest (in the removal of foreign servicemen from Latvian territory) prevailed over the applicant’s personal interest in staying in Latvia: manifestly ill-founded.
(b) The applicant’s complaints concerning the Latvian authorities’ refusal to register the birth of his daughter and his marriage (Article 12) were dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy