Translated material
Double standards
The European Court was accused of violating its own regulations
Representatives of the Russian-speaking Sysoev family, who are seeking in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognition that Latvia has violated their right to private and family life, accused the Strasbourg court of violating its own regulations. This followed immediately after the statement by Latvia’s representative to the ECHR, Inga Reine, that “Latvia has managed to win a case for the second time at a court of this level and that there is no subject for consideration in the Sysoevs’ case.” The Sysoevs wrote about this in their letter to their Russian representative Vitaly Portnov, and he, in turn, raised the question of how the Latvian side could know about the nature of the ECHR decision, when even the date of its official announcement is still unknown.On May 24, the Grand Chamber of the ECHR considered the case of the Sysoev family, who have been seeking Latvia to provide them with a permanent residence permit for 12 years. In June 2005, the Small Chamber of the Court found Latvia to have violated Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (non-interference in private and family life), but in November this decision was overturned and sent for review. The very next day after the meeting of the Grand Chamber, the Sysoevs learned from the Latvian media that the official representative of Latvia to the ECHR, Inga Reine, confidently declared her victory in this case.
“So, Latvia, going to the court hearing, already knew what the decision would be? How can this be? Does this mean that there is no truth in the European Court either and the officials are playing a dirty behind-the-scenes game through the complainants? - the Sysoevs wrote in a letter to their representative Portnov. - Remember, we are not occupiers or immigrants, we did not invade any family, we did not hold weapons in our hands, we did not create occupation laws, we did not shoot, we did not insult, and all 37 years that we spent in Latvia, we were engaged only in creative life "
“Ordinary people, residents of Latvia - Russians and Latvians - are aware of the facts of violation of our rights, but the European Court is not. It seems that Article 8 of the European Convention also has double standards. It turns out that the courts are just a show, and we were so hoping for a fair decision!” - noted the Sysoevs.
Ms. Reine, in her speech at the meeting on May 24, expressed regret that the Grand Chamber of the Court “has to consider such an insignificant case.” “Until 1989, the Sysoevs had the status of a family of military personnel, and a feature of the life of military personnel was constant movement and change of place of residence. After the collapse of the USSR, the Sysoevs decided to stay in Latvia. But then for some reason they received registration in Izhevsk, and Arkady Sysoev even began to receive a military pension. It follows from this that the applicants expressed a desire to live in Russia,” she said. - Registration can only be in one place, this is clear to anyone who lived in the USSR. Since the 30s of the last century, there has been liability in the Union for violating the registration regime - this is as well known as the fact that you cannot cross the street at a red light.”
The Commissioner of the Russian Federation at the ECHR, Pavel Laptev, in response to this then noted that there really are some similarities with the 30s. “This whole story is very reminiscent of the actions of the NKVD, well described in Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s novel “In the First Circle,” - just in case, the commissioner handed over one copy of the film based on this novel to the court.
Despite the “insignificance” of the Sysoevs’ case, the judges of the Grand Chamber still had questions for Ms. Reyna. Judge Türmen from Turkey was interested in whether the letters warning about deportation that the Sysoevs received from the authorities were still valid. Judge Fura-Sandström, from Sweden, wanted to know whether the applicants “faced any difficulties due to their lack of passports.” And Judge Kaflisch from Liechtenstein asked: “How did the situation with the applicants’ status in Latvia affect their economic security?”
Ms. Reina did not need to take a break to prepare her answer. "If people don't have a stamp in their passport, then they are illegal immigrants," she told the judges. In addition, the representative of Latvia noted that she did not agree “with the issue of integrating the Sysoevs into life in Latvia.” “Leaving Latvia for Russia is not like moving from the UK to India, it can be compared to moving from Wales to Scotland, that is, the difference is minimal,” she said. - We offered the Sysoevs a certain status (temporary residence permit for a period of two years after the decision of the Small Chamber of the ECHR in June last year. - Ed. ). Then they will have the right to medical care, work, study, and after this, the right to obtain a permanent residence permit.”
Judge Caflisch considered that the answer to his question about the economic status of the family had not been received, and reminded Ms. Reyna of this. “Does an illegal immigrant have the right to work in your country? Probably only on the black market,” the Latvian representative answered the question with a question. “I did not ask you what you think about the laws of my country. I asked about the laws of your state,” Mr. Caflisch said sharply and asked no more questions. Although, as Mr. Portnov later noted, “as a rule, a judge is cruel to those whose position he supports.”
Representatives of the Sysoev family Vitaly Portnov and Galina Nilus during the hearing tried to draw the court's attention to the violation of procedure. But the President of the ECHR, Lucius Wildhaber, did not give them the floor, announcing the end of the meeting.
Nevertheless, representatives of the Sysoevs continue to insist on their position. “The parties had some very serious procedural challenges in this case,” Ms. Nilus said. “Their essence boils down to how open the procedure for appointing members of the Grand Chamber is to the parties.” “The same judge, Ms. Briede from Latvia, took part in the consideration of the case in both instances,” explained Mr. Portnov. — Last June, when the Small Chamber made a decision on the Sysoevs’ case, it voted against satisfying their complaint. The judge wrote her dissenting opinion, which was published on the official website of the ECHR and, therefore, became available to an indefinite number of people. Then the same judge takes part in the review of the case, and it is quite obvious that now her decision will be the same.”
According to Mr. Portnov, four judges participated in the meeting of the Grand Chamber, who decided to overturn the decision of the first instance in November last year. Among those four was the President of the ECHR, Lucius Wildhaber.
“Currently, there is a practice of absolute opacity in the procedure for considering appeals from the parties when transferring a case for review to the Grand Chamber. That is, neither we nor the Sysoevs themselves were even notified that the decision in their case recognizing a violation of human rights by Latvia had been cancelled. Moreover, we were not even given the opportunity to present our objections to Latvia’s protest. This violates the fundamental principle of competition between the parties. And this is happening at a time when the European Court, in its decisions, criticized the Russian courts for not sending summons to the parties on time to schedule the case for hearing,” Mr. Portnov said.
“If the decision of the Grand Chamber is contrary to the one previously adopted in the first instance, this may provoke some European states to discriminatory application of national law to persons living in the territory of these countries for many years,” concluded lawyer Portnov.