FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13741/05
by Vitali UDUT
against Estonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Volodymyr Butkevych, President,
Rait Maruste,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 April 2005,
Having regard to the information submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vitali Udut, was a stateless person who was born in 1971 in Ukraine. In Estonia he had his permanent domicile in Paldiski. On 13 March 2008 he died. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms M. Hion, Director of the Human Rights Division of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 October 1992, apparently in Estonia, the applicant married R.G., who holds a permanent residence permit in Estonia.
In 1995 the Estonian authorities ordered the applicant's expulsion as he was in the country unlawfully. The Ukrainian authorities issued him with an emergency travel document. According to the applicant he was, in fact, not expelled and stayed in Estonia. According to the Estonian authorities, the applicant unlawfully re-entered Estonia in 1995.
From 21 December 1995 to 21 December 1999 the applicant was included on a list of persons whose entry into Estonia was prohibited.
The marriage between the applicant and R.G. was dissolved in 1999 but the couple continued to live together.
On 27 July 2004 the applicant turned to the Citizenship and Migration Board (Kodakondsus- ja Migratsiooniamet, “the Board”) in order to apply for a residence permit. However, he was arrested by the police for staying in Estonia illegally.
On 5 August 2004 the Tallinn Administrative Court (halduskohus) granted a police request that the applicant be placed in detention in the expulsion centre until his expulsion. He could not be expelled immediately as according to the Ukrainian authorities he was not a Ukrainian national. The Administrative Court repeatedly extended his detention at the Board's request.
According to the death certificate submitted by the Government, the applicant passed away on 13 March 2008.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that his detention in the expulsion centre had been unlawful and its length excessive. He also complained that the detention had been in breach of his right to family life. He relied on Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention.
He further complained that the judicial control of the lawfulness of his detention had been purely formal, as the courts could not assess the proportionality of the detention and had been legally obliged to extend it unless there were very limited formal grounds for release. He relied on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4. He also complained, relying on Article 13, that because of his detention he could not work and therefore did not have the means to pay a lawyer.
THE LAW
By a letter dated 28 July 2008 the Government requested that the Court strike the case out of the list of cases as the applicant had passed away and the rights concerned had been closely linked to his person and could not be regarded as transferable.
The Court notes that in several cases where the applicant has died after having lodged the application it has taken into account the intention of the applicant's heirs or close members of his or her family to pursue the proceedings (see, for example, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000‑XII, with further references). However, in the present case, the Court has no information about the applicant's relatives or close members of his family or about whether they might wish to pursue the application.
Consequently, considering that there exists no general interest in the present case which necessitates proceeding with the examination of the complaints raised, the Court finds that the conditions in which a case may be struck out of its list, as provided in Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, are satisfied.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekVolodymyr Butkevych
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy