EHRM, 15-01-2007, nr. 60654/00

In 1993 the first and second applicants applied to the Latvian Interior Ministry's Nationality and Immigration Department (lekšlietu ministrijas Pilsonības un imigrācijas departaments — ‘the Department’) to obtain permanent resident status and to be entered in the register of residents of the Republic of Latvia (Latvijas Republikas Iedzīvotāju reģistrs). However, on 19 June 1993 the Department issued them only with temporary residence permits.

The first and second applicants then lodged an application with the Alûūksne District Court of First Instance, requesting it to direct the Department to enter them in the register of residents as permanent residents. In a judgment delivered on 28 October 2003, which was upheld on 8 December 1993 following an appeal on points of law, the court allowed their application. It considered that, under the legislation in force, the situation of the second applicant, who had left the army before 4 May 1990 — the date on which Latvia had declared its independence — could not be equated with that of a non-Latvian serviceman temporarily present on Latvian soil, who would be entitled only to a temporary residence permit. The Department subsequently entered all the applicants in the register of residents.

In the meantime, in January 1992, the first two applicants had each obtained two former Soviet passports and had therefore been able to have their place of residence registered in Izhevsk (Russia) despite already having a registered place of residence in Latvia (pieraksts or dzīvesvietas reģistrācija). The Department discovered this fact only in 1995.

In two decisions dated 3 November and 1 December 1995 the Alūksne police decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the applicants for using false identity papers. However, the Department imposed an administrative penalty of 25 lati (LVL) (approximately 40 euros (EUR)) on them for breach of the passport regulations. The Department also applied to the Alūksne District Court of First Instance to have the proceedings reopened to consider new facts, alleging fraudulent behaviour on the part of the first two applicants. The Department also noted that the third applicant had followed the example of her parents and sister in 1995, obtaining two passports and having her place of residence registered in both Russia and Latvia.

In an order of 28 May 1996 the Alūksne District Court of First Instance, ruling on the application for the proceedings to be reopened, allowed the Department's application, quashed its own judgment of 28 October 1993 and ordered the removal of the applicants' names from the register of residents. The first two applicants appealed to the Vidzeme Regional Court which, in an order dated 3 June 1997, quashed the decision in question and referred the case back to the Alūksne Court of First Instance.

In 1996 the second and third applicants applied for and obtained Russian nationality. On 8 August 1996 the Russian Embassy in Latvia issued them with passports of the Russian Federation.

In March 1998 the third applicant, by now an adult, was joined as a party to the proceedings before the Alūksne Court of First Instance.

In a letter of 15 May 1998 the Joint Committee for the implementation of the agreement between the Government of Latvia and the Government of the Russian Federation on social-welfare arrangements for retired members of the Russian armed forces and their family members resident in Latvia (‘the Russian-Latvian agreement’ — see paragraph 53 below) requested the Interior Ministry's Nationality and Migration Directorate (lekšlietu ministrijas Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvalde — ‘the Directorate’), which had replaced the Department, to issue the applicants with permanent residence permits, on the ground that they had the right to remain in Latvia under the above agreement. In a second letter sent the same day the Joint Committee informed the Alūksne Court of First Instance that the first applicant had neither Russian nor any other nationality.

In July 1998 the applicants submitted a further request to the Court of First Instance. In a joint memorial they argued that, as the second and third applicants had Russian nationality, they had the right to obtain permanent residence permits under the Russian-Latvian agreement. The first applicant, who had no nationality, contended that she was entitled to the status of a ‘permanently resident non-citizen (nepilsonis)’ under the Act on the Status of Former USSR Citizens without Latvian or other Citizenship (‘the Non-Citizens Act’ — see paragraph 47 below).

In court, the applicants made no attempt to deny the actions of which they had been accused by the Department and the Directorate, but maintained that those actions had been in breach only of Russian law and therefore had no effect on their rights in Latvia.

In a judgment of 28 July 1998 the Alūksne District Court of First Instance allowed the applicants' request. It noted that the applicants' place of residence had been legally registered in Alūksne since 1970 and that they had lived there from then onwards. In the court's view, since the procuring of second passports by the applicants and their registration in Russia were illegal and void acts, they had no impact on the applicants' legal status in Latvia. The court also noted that the second applicant was on the list of former members of the Russian armed forces in receipt of a Russian military pension and entitled to remain in Latvia. That list had been drawn up jointly by the two governments in accordance with the Russian-Latvian agreement. Consequently, the court held that the first applicant was entitled to apply for a passport as a ‘permanently resident non-citizen’ and that the second and third applicants were entitled to obtain permanent residence permits.

The Directorate appealed against that judgment to the Vidzeme Regional Court. In a judgment of 15 June 1999 the Regional Court dismissed the appeal, endorsing the findings and reasoning of the first-instance court.

The Directorate then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Senate of the Supreme Court. In a judgment of 15 September 1999 the Senate quashed the Regional Court's judgment and declared it null and void. The Senate found that secretly obtaining two passports and registering places of residence in two different countries, failing to disclose the second passports and supplying false information to the authorities when applying for regularisation constituted serious breaches of Latvian immigration law. The Senate also referred to section 1(3), subparagraph 5, of the Non-Citizens Act, which stated that the status of ‘permanently resident non-citizen’ could not be granted to persons who, on 1 July 1992, had their permanent place of residence registered in a member State of the Commonwealth of Independent States (of which Russia is a member). The Senate considered that the provision in question was fully applicable to the applicants' case.

The Senate also noted that the judgment of the Alūksne Court of First Instance of 28 October 1993 had been subsequently set aside when the proceedings were reopened, thereby depriving the entry of the applicants in the register of residents of any legal basis. It concluded that the second and third applicants, since they did not satisfy the requirements of the Aliens and Stateless Persons (Entry and Residence) Act (‘the Aliens Act’ — see paragraph 50 below), were also not entitled to obtain permanent residence permits. Consequently, the Senate set aside the judgment of 15 June 1999 and referred the case back to the appellate court.

For procedural reasons, the case was transferred to the Latgale Regional Court which, in a judgment of 10 January 2000, rejected the applicants' application, reaffirming the reasons given by the Senate. Unlike the Russian-Latvian Joint Committee, the Regional Court considered that the first applicant had Russian nationality under the Russian Federation's Nationality Act. With regard to the second applicant, it considered that the fact that an individual was on the list of retired army personnel merely attested to the fact that the person concerned actually resided in Latvia and was in receipt of a Russian military pension; it did not in any sense confer entitlement to a residence permit.

In a judgment of 12 April 2000 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law, endorsing in substance the arguments of the Regional Court.

In two letters dated 17 May and 26 June 2000 the Directorate reminded the applicants that they were required to leave Latvia.

On the morning of 6 March 2002 the first applicant, Svetlana Sisojeva, was summoned to the regional headquarters of the security police (Drošības policija). An officer of the security police asked her a number of questions, some of them relating to her application to the Court and to an interview she had given to journalists from a Russian television channel on the subject. In particular, the police asked the first applicant how the Russian journalists had made contact with her, how she had heard about the possibility of lodging an individual application with the Court, how she had found lawyers to represent her before the Court and how she had known that certain persons had bribed Directorate officials in order to obtain Latvian residence permits. In addition, the police officer asked her several questions about her professional career and about the members of her family.

The dialogue between the first applicant and the police officer, as reconstructed by the applicant and sent to her lawyers on 4 April 2002, ran as follows:

The Government contested the accuracy of this record, particularly in view of the length of time that had elapsed between the interview itself and the drafting of the document. The first applicant conceded that the document was probably less than perfect, given that it had been drafted from memory almost a month after the fact; she acknowledged that several other questions (which she could not recall) might have been asked during the interview. However, she contended that her record reflected with sufficient accuracy the content and tone of the interview.

On 11 November 2003 the head of the Directorate sent a letter to each of the applicants explaining the procedure to be followed in order to regularise their stay in Latvia. The relevant passages of the letter sent to the first applicant (Svetlana Sisojeva) read as follows:

The letters sent to the other two applicants were similar in content. The letter to the second applicant (Arkady Sisojev) stated in particular:

Lastly, the letter to the third applicant (Aksana Sisojeva) contained the following passages:

In addition, a letter containing the above information concerning the three applicants was sent to the Government's Agent. On the same date, 11 November 2003, the head of the Directorate signed three decisions formally regularising the applicants' status in Latvia. More specifically, he ordered that the first applicant be entered in the register of residents as a ‘stateless person’, that she be issued with an identity document valid for two years, and that the second and third applicants be issued with temporary residence permits valid for one year and six months respectively. However, regularisation of the status of the second and third applicants was contingent upon that of the first applicant. In other words, in order for Arkady Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva to obtain residence permits, Svetlana Sisojeva first had to submit the relevant documents to the Directorate.

None of the applicants complied with the instructions outlined above in order to obtain residence permits.

By Decree no. 15 of 22 March 2005, the Cabinet of Ministers (Ministru kabinets) instructed the Minister of the Interior to issue Arkady Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva with five-year temporary residence permits, ‘in accordance with section 23(3) of the Immigration Act’. In a letter sent on the same day, the Government informed the Court of the measure, pointing out that, after the five years had elapsed, the two applicants in question could obtain permanent residence permits

On 15 November 2005 the applicants applied to the Directorate to have their stay regularised on the basis they had requested initially, that is, for the first applicant to be granted the status of ‘permanently resident non-citizen’ and for the other two applicants to be issued with permanent residence permits. The Directorate replied on the following day, 16 November 2005. After recalling the background to the case before the domestic courts and in Strasbourg, the Directorate went on:

The remainder of the letter explained in detail to each of the applicants the procedure to be followed and the documents to be submitted in order to have their stay regularised, and the tax rates which applied for that purpose. The applicants did not take the steps indicated by the Directorate.

On 2 and 3 November 2005 the relevant official of the Border Police questioned the applicants, asking them why they had not regularised their stay. Following that conversation, the Commander of the Border Police requested details from the head of the Directorate concerning the applicants' precise status in Latvia. By letter of 22 November 2005 the latter explained that, since 2000, there had been sufficient legal basis for issuing orders for the applicants' deportation, but that no such orders had been issued on the grounds of proportionality and in view of the proceedings pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

In a letter dated 16 December 2005 the Directorate reminded the applicants once more that they had the possibility of regularising their stay. No reply was forthcoming.

As matters stand, the applicants are resident in Latvia without valid residence permits. According to the information supplied by the applicants, which has not been disputed by the Government, Svetlana Sisojeva has been unemployed since 1992. Arkady Sisojev works as a technician in a municipal communal heating plant in Alūksne; despite being cautioned repeatedly by the authorities, his employer has consistently refused to dismiss him on the sole ground that he is illegally resident in Latvia. Aksana Sisojeva, meanwhile, obtained a law degree from the Baltic Russian Institute (Baltijas Krievu institūts) in July 2004. The applicants contend that, owing to her irregular status, she has to date been unable to find work.

Section 360(4) of the Administrative Procedure Act (Administratīvā procesa likums), in force since 1 February 2004, provides:

The main provisions governing interviews similar to that complained of by the first applicant are contained in the Act of 16 December 1993 on operational measures (Operatīvās darbības likums). The ‘operational measures’ referred to in the Act cover all operations, covert or otherwise, aimed at protecting individuals, the independence and sovereignty of the State, the constitutional system, the country's economic and scientific potential and classified information against external or internal threats (section 1). Operational measures are aimed in particular at preventing and detecting criminal offences, tracing the perpetrators of criminal offences and gathering evidence (section 2).

The most straightforward measure is the ‘intelligence-related operational procedure’ (operatīvā izzināšana), designed to ‘obtain information on events, persons or objects’ (section 9(1)). The procedure takes one of the following forms:

All operational measures must be implemented in strict compliance with the law and human rights. In particular, no harm — physical or otherwise — may be caused to the persons concerned, nor may they be subjected to violence or threats (section 4(1) to (3)). Any person who considers that he or she has suffered harm as a result of the actions of a member of the security forces may lodge a complaint with the prosecuting authorities or the relevant court (section 5).

Under section 15 of the National Security Establishments Act of 5 May 1994 (Valsts drošības iestāžu likums), the security police come under the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior. They have powers to deploy operational measures in order to combat corruption.

Following the decision by its President not to include in the case file the Government's submissions of 22 March 2005 informing the Court of new developments in the case (see paragraphs 10 and 42 above), the Chamber ruled on the basis of the facts as they had stood before the above-mentioned date. The relevant part of the Chamber judgment of 16 June 2005 reads:

As to the merits, the Chamber noted in particular:

The Russian Government endorsed the applicants' arguments. They too considered that, despite the steps taken by the Latvian authorities with a view to regularising the applicants' status, the applicants could still claim to be ‘victims’ of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Firstly, like the applicants, the Russian Government referred to the general principle in the Court's case-law whereby applicants could be deprived of their victim status only if the alleged violation was acknowledged and redress was afforded. Neither of those conditions had been met in the instant case. With regard to the first condition, the Latvian authorities had at no point acknowledged the existence of a violation; as to the second condition, only monetary compensation could afford redress for the damage sustained by the Sisojev family in the present case.

Secondly, the Russian Government considered that even the most recent measures taken by the respondent Government were inadequate to remedy the applicants' complaint. In particular, the second and third applicants had been offered only temporary residence permits whereas, under the Russian-Latvian agreement of 30 April 1994 (see paragraph 53 above), they were entitled to permanent permits. In addition, like the applicants, the Russian Government submitted that regularisation of the stay of the second and third applicants continued to depend on that of the first applicant, Svetlana Sisojeva.

The Russian Government further cited the Slivenko v. Latvia judgment ([GC], no. 48321/99, ECHR 2003-X), which they considered to be similar to the present case. In their view, the applicants were the victims of political changes beyond their control, and the ordeals they had endured had to be seen in the wider context of an anti-Russian policy on the part of the Latvian authorities since the country's return to independence.

The Court notes at the outset that the applicants consider the Non-Citizens Act and the Russian-Latvian agreement of 30 April 1994 to have been incorrectly applied in their case. In that connection it reiterates that, in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, its sole duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court or to substitute its own assessment for that of the national courts or other national authorities unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28–29, ECHR 1999-I). In other words, the Court cannot question the assessment of the domestic authorities unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, which there is not in the instant case.

The Court further reiterates that the machinery for the protection of fundamental rights established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights. The Convention does not lay down for the Contracting States any given manner for ensuring within their internal law the effective implementation of the Convention. The choice as to the most appropriate means of achieving this is in principle a matter for the domestic authorities, who are in continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries and are better placed to assess the possibilities and resources afforded by their respective domestic legal systems (see Swedish Engine Drivers' Union v. Sweden, judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 20, p. 18, § 50, and Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 91, ECHR 2001-I).

This principle applies to immigration matters as well as in other spheres. Hence, as the Court has reaffirmed on several occasions, Article 8 cannot be construed as guaranteeing, as such, the right to a particular type of residence permit. Where the domestic legislation provides for several different types, the Court must analyse the legal and practical implications of issuing a particular permit. If it allows the holder to reside within the territory of the host country and to exercise freely there the right to respect for his or her private and family life, the granting of such a permit represents in principle a sufficient measure to meet the requirements of that provision. In such cases, the Court is not empowered to rule on whether the individual concerned should be granted one particular legal status rather than another, that choice being a matter for the domestic authorities alone (see Aristimuño Mendizabal v. France, no. 51431/99, § 66, 17 January 2006; Dremlyuga v. Latvia (dec.), no. 66729/01, 29 April 2003; and Gribenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 76878/01, 15 May 2003; see also the admissibility decision of 28 February 2002 in the present case).

In the instant case the Government argued that the applicants could not claim the status of ‘victims’. In that connection, the Court reiterates that the word ‘victim’ in the context of Article 34 of the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission in issue (see, among many other authorities, Nsona v. the Netherlands, judgment of 28 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, pp. 2004–2005, § 106, and Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII). In other words, the person concerned must be directly affected by it or run the risk of being directly affected by it (see, for example, Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, pp. 15–16, §§ 30–31, and Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, pp. 15–16, § 39). It is not therefore possible to claim to be a ‘victim’ of an act which is deprived, temporarily or permanently, of any legal effect.

In the aforementioned Eckle judgment, the Court indeed held that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant was not sufficient to deprive him of his status as a ‘victim’ unless the national authorities acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (ibidem, pp. 30–31, § 66; see also Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 142, ECHR 2000-IV; and Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC] (dec.), no. 48787/99, 4 July 2001). However, with more particular reference to the specific category of cases involving the deportation of non-nationals, the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the ‘victim’ of a deportation measure if the measure is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah, cited above, p. 87, § 46; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005). It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55–56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Andrić v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005; and Yildiz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40932/02, 13 October 2005).

In the instant case the Court acknowledges that, if not from the time of their removal from the register of residents in May 1996, then at the latest from the time of the final dismissal of their appeal on points of law in April 2000, the members of the Sisojev family experienced a period of insecurity and legal uncertainty in Latvia which lasted until November 2003. However, it does not consider that their situation was substantially more uncertain than that of the applicants in most similar cases (see, in particular, the decisions in Pančenko, Mikheyeva and Fjodorova and Others, cited above). Firstly, the Court notes that, in 1992 and 1995, the applicants in the present case obtained two passports each and registered their residence in both Russia and Latvia without informing the relevant Latvian authorities. In the Court's view, this demonstrates that returning to Russia one day was an option they were prepared to consider. What is more, the applicants were undoubtedly aware that their conduct — for which, moreover, they were subsequently ordered to pay a fine — was in breach of the Latvian legislation of the time. Accordingly, it cannot but be said that the problems they experienced following the withdrawal of their initial residence permits stemmed to a large extent from their own actions.

Secondly, the Court observes that the first concrete proposal from the Directorate aimed at regularising the applicants' stay was made on 11 November 2003. Accordingly, it very much doubts whether the applicants can claim the existence of an ‘uncertain situation’ after that date. Lastly, it is clear from the case file that, despite having long been an illegal resident in Latvia, the second applicant has been and continues to be in paid employment; the third applicant, meanwhile, has been able to complete a course of higher education and obtain a degree (see paragraph 45 above).

However, in the instant case, the Court does not consider it necessary either to reach a conclusion on the question whether, at the time they lodged their application, the applicants could claim to be ‘victims’ of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, or even to determine whether they can claim that status today. In the light of the new facts brought to its attention since 22 March 2005 (see paragraphs 10 and 42 above), the Court considers that there is no objective justification for continuing to examine this complaint, for the reasons set out below.

The Court reiterates that, under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, it 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 … the matter has been resolved…’ In order to ascertain whether that provision applies to the present case, the Court must answer two questions in turn: first, whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicant still obtain and, second, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed (see Pisano, cited above, § 42). In the present case, that entails first of all establishing whether the risk of the applicants' being deported persists; after that, the Court must consider whether the measures taken by the authorities constitute sufficient redress for the applicants' complaint.

The Court must determine whether the regularisation of the applicants' stay would be sufficient to remedy the possible effects of the situation of which they complained to the Court. With reference first of all to the first applicant, Svetlana Sisojeva, the Court takes note of the Directorate's letter of 16 November 2005 (see paragraph 43 above), according to which it is still open to the first applicant to regularise her stay in accordance with the Directorate's decision of 11 November 2003, that is, by obtaining an identity document for stateless persons and, accordingly, a permanent residence permit. She would thus be able to remain in Latvia on a legal and permanent basis and, as a result, live a normal social life and maintain her relationships with her family, including Mrs Vizule and the latter's two children.

With regard to the other two applicants, Arkady Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva, the Court observes that, by a Decree of 22 March 2005, the Cabinet of Ministers instructed the Minister of the Interior to issue them with five-year temporary residence permits; according to the Government, the applicants may apply for permanent permits when that period has elapsed. Contrary to what the two applicants concerned and the third-party intervener apparently maintained, the Court notes in particular that the regularisation of their status no longer depends on that of Svetlana Sisojeva, with the result that each applicant can regularise his or her stay in Latvia independently of the other two.

In short, as matters stand, the applicants do not face any real and imminent risk of deportation (see, mutatis mutandis, Vijayanathan and Pusparajah, cited above, p. 87, §§ 46–47, and the Commission's opinion, p. 95, § 119).

The Court notes that, despite repeated reminders on the part of the Directorate, none of the applicants has so far acted on the latter's recommendations. In their submissions to the Grand Chamber, the applicants contended that they did not have all the documents required in order to apply for a residence permit, so that any response on their part would have been futile. However, the Court observes that they have hitherto failed to make any attempt, however small, to get in touch with the authorities and try to find a solution to whatever difficulties may arise. Having regard to the case file as a whole as it currently stands, and in the light of the explanations provided by the Government, the Court sees no indication that the latter have acted in bad faith.

In short, the measures indicated by the Government would enable the applicants to remain in Latvia and to exercise freely in that country their right to respect for their private and family life as protected by Article 8 of the Convention and interpreted in the Court's established case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Boughanemi v. France, judgment of 24 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, pp. 607–08, § 35; C. v. Belgium, judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp. 922–23, § 25; Boujlifa v. France, judgment of 21 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, p. 2263, § 36; and Buscemi v. Italy, no. 29569/95, § 53, ECHR 1999-VI). Consequently, and in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the options outlined by the Latvian authorities for regularising the applicants' situation are adequate and sufficient to remedy their complaint.

Having regard to all of the above, the Court finds that both conditions for the application of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention are met. The matter giving rise to this complaint can therefore now be considered to be ‘resolved’ within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b). Finally, no particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires the Court to continue its examination of the application under Article 37 § 1in fine.

Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court's list of cases in so far as it relates to Article 8 of the Convention.

In its judgment, the Chamber noted at the outset the discrepancy between the applicants' version of the facts and that of the Government. Being unable to verify the content of the questions put to Svetlana Sisojeva, it based its analysis on the facts on which the two versions concurred. The Chamber accepted the Government's explanation that the main focus of the interview had been the allegation that Directorate officials had acted in a corrupt manner, rather than the proceedings brought by the applicants in Strasbourg. The Chamber also noted that the police officer in question had asked the first applicant several questions concerning her application, the relevance of which the Chamber failed to discern. Nevertheless, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case, and in particular the wider context in which the interview had taken place, the Chamber reached the conclusion that the measure in question had not attained a sufficient level of severity to be considered as a form of ‘pressure’, ‘intimidation’ or ‘harassment’ which might have induced the applicants to withdraw or modify their application or hindered them in any other way in the exercise of their right of individual petition. It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 34 of the Convention.

The Russian Government considered that, in view of the content of the questions put by the officer of the security police to the first applicant, the impugned interview constituted clear psychological pressure linked to the present application to the Court, made all the more serious by the fact that the first and second applicants had been called in for questioning in November 2005. They argued that, in view of the particular role played by the State security services in the former Soviet Union, most people who had lived under the Soviet regime had been, and continued to be, particularly fearful of them. Referring in that regard to the Fedotova v. Russia judgment (no. 73225/01, §§ 48–52, 13 April 2006), the Russian Government argued that the interview at issue had in itself been improper. There was nothing in the case file to bear out the Latvian Government's claim that the main focus of the conversation had been corruption on the part of some officials; on the contrary, the dialogue reproduced by the first applicant showed clearly that the security police had been trying to intimidate her. As to the content of the dialogue, the Russian Government saw no reason to cast doubt on the accuracy of the applicant's reconstruction, pointing to the fact that the respondent Government had not provided any official report or record of the impugned conversation.

In short, the Russian Government were satisfied that the interview had been aimed first and foremost at intimidating the applicants in order to force them to withdraw their application, then pending before the Court, in breach of the last sentence of Article 34 of the Convention.

The Court reiterates that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted by Article 34 of the Convention that applicants or potential applicants are able to communicate freely with the Court without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1219, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1192, § 159; Ergi v. Turkey, judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1784, § 105; and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 130, ECHR 2000-VII).

The word ‘pressure’ must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their families or legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy. Whether or not contacts between the authorities and an applicant or potential applicant amount to unacceptable practices from the standpoint of Article 34 must be determined in the light of the particular circumstances in issue. In this respect, regard must be had to the vulnerability of the complainant and his or her susceptibility to influence exerted by the authorities (see, for example, Petra v. Romania, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, pp. 2854–55, § 43; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3304, § 170; and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV).

In the instant case the parties agreed that on 6 March 2002 the first applicant, Mrs Svetlana Sisojeva, was summoned to the headquarters of the security police, where one of the officers asked her a number of questions relating in particular to her application before the Court. In that connection, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine whether the questioning constituted a formal ‘interview’ for the purposes of domestic law.

As to the exact content of the questions asked by the police officer, the Court notes that no official report was drawn up following the interview. The only document submitted in that connection by the first applicant is a record which she herself drafted from memory about a month after the event and the accuracy of which is disputed by the Government. For their part, the Government supplied a copy of a letter from the head of the security police outlining briefly the aim of the interview and how it had been conducted. In the absence of more convincing evidence, the Court is unable to verify the content of the questions put to the first applicant; it will, however, take as established those facts on which the two documents concur.

It is clear from both documents that, a few days prior to the interview, the first applicant had given an interview to a Russian television station in which she had mentioned several cases of corruption among Directorate officials. As corruption in the public sector is punishable under criminal law and constitutes a serious offence, the applicant should reasonably have expected the police or the prosecuting authorities to take an interest in the allegations. It appears also that the interview was in accordance with the national legislation, which authorises the security police to investigate corruption offences and to gather information from the individuals concerned (see paragraph 58 above). Accordingly, the Court accepts the Government's explanation that the main focus of the interview was the allegation that Directorate officials had acted in a corrupt manner, rather than the proceedings being pursued by the applicants before the Court (see, conversely, Fedotova, cited above, §§ 49–50).

However, the fact remains that, in the course of his conversation with the first applicant, the police officer asked her several questions about her application to the Court. Unlike the Government, who argued that the questions were justified by the requirements of the investigation, the Court has serious doubts as to their necessity and relevance, and has difficulty discerning a connection between acts of corruption allegedly committed by unidentified third parties and the present application. In that connection the Court reiterates that, even if a Government has reason to believe that in a particular case the right of individual petition is being abused, the appropriate course of action is for that Government to alert the Court and inform it of their misgivings (see Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 131, and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 409, 18 June 2002). By questioning the first applicant on her reasons for lodging an application with the Court, the officer of the security police therefore exceeded the remit of the investigation by a considerable margin.

As the Court pointed out above, in determining whether a State has failed in its obligations under Article 34, all the circumstances of the case must be taken into account. In the instant case, the Court notes that the questioning of the first applicant in general and the questions put to her in particular were of an incidental nature. There is nothing in the case file to indicate that the Latvian authorities attempted to summon the applicant a second time (see, conversely, Ergi, cited above, pp. 1761–62 and p. 1784, §§ 26–28 and § 105). Neither does it appear that the security police forced the first applicant to give evidence, in relation either to her application to the Court or to the alleged acts of corruption which were the main focus of the interview. On the contrary, the applicant's refusal to disclose the names of the allegedly corrupt officials was respected and did not entail any legal consequences for her. Furthermore, assuming the record of the conversation written by the first applicant to be accurate, the Court observes that the language used by the police officer was polite and did not contain any expressions, references or insinuations of a threatening or even a dissuasive nature (see, conversely, Petra, cited above, p. 2855, § 44).

Likewise, taking an overall view, the Court observes that the questions put by the police officer were not aimed at inducing the applicant to reveal the content of the documents in the applicants' case file or of their correspondence with the Court, or at casting doubt on the authenticity of their application or their capacity to conduct legal proceedings (see, conversely, Tanrikulu, cited above, § 131).

Finally, the Court considers that it cannot disregard the wider context in which the impugned interview took place. It is true that, in a number of cases in which the authorities questioned applicants about their applications, the Court has found them to be in breach of their obligations under Article 34 (or the former Article 25 § 1) of the Convention (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, p. 1219, § 105; Kurt, cited above, pp. 1192–93, § 160; Tanrikulu, cited above, § 130; and Orhan, cited above, § 407; see also Bilgin v. Turkey, no. 23819/94, § 133, 16 November 2000; Dulaş v. Turkey, no. 25801/94, § 79, 30 January 2001; and Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, § 118, 31 May 2001). However, bearing in mind the very specific circumstances of the cases cited above, the Court has found no indication that similar factors exist in the applicants' case.

In sum, while bearing in mind the reservations expressed in paragraph 120 above and taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case, the Court considers that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the questioning of the first applicant by an officer of the security police on 6 March 2002 should be regarded as a form of ‘pressure’, ‘intimidation’ or ‘harassment’ which might have induced the applicants to withdraw or modify their application or hindered them in any other way in the exercise of their right of individual petition.

Lastly, with regard to the alleged interception of the applicants' telephone conversations, the Court observes that this is merely an unsubstantiated and unproven assertion (see Michael Edward Cooke v. Austria, no. 25878/94, § 48, 8 February 2000). The same is true of the complaint that the Latvian authorities had intended to send the applicants to prison.

Consequently, the respondent State has not failed to comply with its obligations under the last sentence of Article 34 of the Convention.