Pradeep SHARMA v Latvia - 28026/05 [2011] ECHR 120 (11 January 2011)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

1. The applicant, Mr Pradeep Sharma, is an Indian national who was born in 1971 and lives in New Delhi, India.

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. The applicant arrived in Latvia in May 1999. He married a Latvian national on 2 July 1999. They have two daughters, both born in Latvia on 19 January 1999 and 18 April 2000 respectively.

4. According to the applicant, in the first years of his stay in Latvia he stayed at home to care for their daughters, the youngest of which had several respiratory diseases since birth. Since April 2004 he appears to have been employed in a local company.

5. The couple lived in Jēkabpils, where they had bought a flat. At some point, during the examination of his application for a permanent residence permit (see paragraphs 13 and 14 below), the applicant’s wife found a job in Daugavpils, a city nearly 100 km away from Jēkabpils. At first, she moved there alone leaving their children to stay in Jēkabpils with the applicant, and came to visit them every weekend. After some time, in November or December 2004, the applicant’s wife took the children with her to Daugavpils. For a couple of days a week the applicant’s wife had to send them to kindergarten, where they were looked after for 24 hours. Meanwhile, the applicant continued to reside in Jēkabpils. The couple had several disputes about their children’s place of residence in Jēkabpils or in Daugavpils. On one occasion, the wife complained to the police about a domestic conflict (see paragraph 15 below).

6. After the applicant was recorded in the list of persons for whom entry into Latvia was refused he was expelled from Latvia on 12 July 2005 (see paragraph 31 below).

7. On 8 October 2008 the applicant’s wife filed for divorce. She submitted among other things that during their cohabitation the applicant had physically abused her in the presence of children, had attempted to strangle her and had threatened her with a knife. According to her there was no dispute as to the custody over children or the division of spouses’ property. However, the applicant allegedly did not financially support the children. In his submissions to the court the applicant did not agree to divorce. He stated that he loved his family and their children and that after one year and a half (when his exclusion from Latvian territory expired) he would return to Latvia. He submitted that he supported the children as much as he could. The court sent a hearing notice to the applicant but he could not attend it because of his exclusion from Latvian territory. He informed the court about this and asked to stay the proceedings until his return, which he considered to be on 15 July 2010. He expressly noted that he wished to participate in the hearings and that it would not be fair to hear the case in his absence.

8. On 2 September 2009 the Madona District Court dissolved the marriage, following a hearing in the applicant’s absence.

9. The applicant appealed against the judgment. He submitted that he had never abused his wife and asked again to stay the proceedings until he could return to Latvia. He also mentioned that the flat in Jēkabpils was bought using his financial means and that he had sent money and presents to the children. The applicant submitted that the marriage could not be dissolved before they agreed on issues that related to the custody over children and the division of spouses’ property.

11. On 4 August 1999 the applicant was issued with a temporary residence permit for one year on the grounds of his marriage with a Latvian national.

12. On 1 August 2000 the applicant was issued with a temporary residence permit for four years. Under the domestic law which was applicable at the material time, following the expiry of that four-year period the applicant was entitled to a permanent residence permit (see paragraph 39 below).

13. On 21 June 2004 the applicant’s documents for the permanent residence permit were accepted. Three months later, on 21 September 2004 the Alien Service Division of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvaldes Ārzemnieku apkalpošanas departaments) with decision no. 7221 refused to grant the permanent residence permit to the applicant on the grounds that he had submitted false information and that did not have sufficient financial means to stay in Latvia.

14. On 13 November 2004 the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs accepted the applicant’s appeal against decision no. 7221 and overturned the decision of its Alien Service Division. Together with his appeal the applicant had submitted a document attesting to his income and to his knowledge of the Latvian language. It was concluded that he had sufficient financial means. He also had not submitted false information. A permanent residence permit was then issued for the applicant which was valid until 9 July 2010.

15. On 6 December 2004 the applicant’s wife reported a domestic conflict to the police. She alleged that several conflicts had taken place; the last of those was on 4-5 December, when she had attempted to talk to the applicant about a divorce. He had allegedly tried to suffocate her and had inflicted bodily injuries on her. The applicant disagreed with his wife’s version of events; he submitted to the police that he had not inflicted any bodily injuries on his wife. The cause of their conflicts had been the fact that his wife took their children to Daugavpils. Following a forensic examination, unspecified minor bodily injuries were found. On 29 December 2004 the police refused opening of the criminal proceedings on the ground that no offence had been committed. No appeal was lodged against that decision.

16. Meanwhile, on 9 December 2004, the applicant’s wife applied to the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs with a view to withdrawing the applicant’s permanent residence permit and with a view to expelling him from Latvia on the grounds that he presented threats to her and their children (life and health). Her letter was forwarded to the Security Police (Drošības policija) to examine the applicant’s personality and to determine if he presented threats to national security or public order and safety.

17. As a result of ensuing events (see paragraphs 19 et seq. below), on 1 and 14 February 2005 the applicant was informed of the adoption of decision no. 823 (see paragraph 21 below) and of the fact that he was to leave the country by 26 March 2005.

18. The applicant claimed that on 18 April 2005 the applicant’s wife applied to the Ministry of the Interior with a view to stopping the applicant’s expulsion from Latvia. She expressed a wish to maintain their family and a wish not to separate him from their children. In reply, the Minister explained the procedure under section 64 of the Immigration Law (see paragraph 50 below). In addition, he noted that her subjective feelings against the applicant did not imply a change in circumstances which formed the basis of the applicant’s record in the list of persons for whom entry into Latvia was refused.

3. The applicant’s inclusion in the list of persons for whom entry into Latvia was refused and its consequences

19. On 10 January 2005 the Security Police informed the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs that the applicant constituted a threat to public order and safety.

20. On 20 January 2005 the Minister of the Interior decided to include the applicant in the list, on the ground that he constituted a threat to public order and safety, and decided to refuse his entry in Latvian territory for an indefinite period of time. This decision, at the time, was not amenable to judicial review (see paragraph 46 below), but it could be reviewed by the Minister of the Interior; the applicant attempted to exhaust this venue (see paragraphs 23 and 24 below).

21. On 1 February 2005 the Alien Service Division of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs adopted decision no. 823 to withdraw the applicant’s permanent residence permit on the grounds of his inclusion in the list. The decision was based on the information received from a competent domestic authority and the 20 January 2005 decision. The Alien Service Department thus withdrew the permanent residence permit issued to the applicant under section 36, paragraph 1, part 2 of the Immigration Law. The applicant’s views were not heard since the decision was made on the basis of information and documents received from the Ministry of the Interior and the applicant’s views could not be adequate in the circumstances. The decision took effect when it was notified to the applicant, namely on the seventh day after its posting. He had to leave the country within 45 days. The applicant could lodge an appeal against this decision with the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs and he did so.

22. On 15 March 2005 the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs with decision no. 74 upheld the findings of its Alien Service Division and rejected the applicant’s appeal. It found that the applicant was lawfully included in the list of persons for whom entry into Latvia was refused. The applicant could, in fact, complain to a prosecutor or to a court about actions of the Security Police under domestic law (see paragraph 56 below). Taking into account that the decision to include the applicant in the list was in force and was not declared unlawful, the applicant’s stay in Latvia was impossible. It further evaluated whether that decision complied with the rule of law, whether it was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate. The decision was taken in the interests of national security, public order and safety and for protection of the rights of others, namely, the spouse and children. It was proportionate because the protection of the interests of society to secure national security and public order and safety in the State outweighed the individual interests of the applicant. The applicant was not heard because his views could not change the circumstances of the case, which were evidenced with proof and would not change. References were also made to the Court’s case-law on immigration control, to Article 8 of the Convention under which the interference with the applicant’s family life could be justified and to the 2004 report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) concerning Latvia. The applicant could lodge an appeal against this decision with the administrative courts, which he did (see paragraph 35 et seq. below).

23. On 24 March 2005 the Minister of the Interior replied to the applicant’s enquiry of 22 February 2005. He referred to the applicable domestic law and, having reviewed the applicant’s case, concluded that the applicant could not be removed from the list of persons for whom entry into Latvia was refused.

24. On 25 May 2005 the applicant applied to the Minister of the Interior with a view to removing the prohibition on entering Latvia (atcelt ieceļošanas aizliegumu). He submitted that the relationship with his spouse had improved and that she and their children did not wish him leaving Latvia. On 13 June 2005 the Minister of the Interior adopted decision no. 121 and refused the applicant’s removal from the list. The decision was sent to the applicant’s address in Jēkabpils. In the decision, the Minister relied on the letter of 27 May 2005 received from an unspecified competent domestic authority informing him that the circumstances, which were the basis for the applicant’s inclusion in the list, had not changed. Thus the Minister could not remove the prohibition on entering Latvia under section 64 of the Immigration Law. The applicant’s submissions could not serve as the basis for his removal from the list since neither under domestic nor under international law could a person choose his country of residence. States were not obliged to respect couples’ choices concerning their country of residence. Neither there were any obstacles for the applicant to enjoy his family life in India nor any special circumstances why the applicant’s family could not be expected to go there. The Minister concluded that the restrictions on the applicant’s right to have respect for his family life were justified in the interests of public order and safety and were proportionate. As concerns the procedure for appeal, a reference was made to section 76, paragraph 2 and section 188, paragraph 2 the Law on Administrative Procedure.

25. On 7 June 2005 the State Border Guard Service arrested the applicant on the ground that he constituted a threat to national security or public order and safety. He was placed in detention and, according to the applicant, he was given no reasons for his arrest.

26. Upon his arrest, the applicant was informed of the possibility to lodge a complaint with a prosecutor about his detention. He did so and complained to the prosecutor, arguing that he had been detained on grounds of lack of a valid residence permit. On 14 June 2005 a prosecutor replied that the applicant’s detention was lawful and was ordered on national security or public safety and order grounds. He could be detained for ten days on these grounds, following which a court order was necessary. It was noted that on 31 May 2005 the Security Police had informed the State Border Guard Service of the applicant’s inclusion in the list. Reference was made to section 64 of the Immigration Law under which the Minister could reduce the number of years for the exclusion from Latvian territory or remove the applicant from the list if the circumstances had changed. Finally, it was noted that the applicant’s detention as such did not automatically entail his expulsion. An expulsion order should be issued within ten days of the applicant’s detention. The applicant was informed that he could lodge an appeal with a superior prosecutor.

27. On 13 June 2005 expulsion order no. 23-7 (lēmums par ārzemnieka piespiedu izraidīšanu) was issued on the grounds that the applicant had been detained by the State Border Guard Service in Latvian territory. He was informed that he would be excluded from Latvian territory for a five-year period. He could lodge an appeal against this decision with the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs but the decision took effect on an unspecified date, when it was notified to the applicant. He appealed on 16 June 2005. There is no evidence to attest to the fact that his appeal was examined.

28. On 16 June 2005, following a closed hearing, a judge of the Jēkabpils District Court authorised the applicant’s detention for two more months. The judge examined the material brought before her, heard the applicant and decided that he was to be transferred to an accommodation centre for illegal immigrants in Olaine. He could not be yet expelled because he had lodged an appeal against order no. 23-7 and thus the judge considered that it was necessary to extend his detention. This decision could be appealed to a higher court.

30. On 30 June 2005 the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs of its own accord reviewed the applicant’s case and adopted decision no. 192. Under domestic law, when an expulsion order was issued, the applicant was to be included in the list of persons for whom entry into Latvia was refused. The term for his exclusion was set to five years from the date of the expulsion order, that is, until 13 June 2010. This decision took effect when it was notified to the applicant, namely on the seventh day after its posting. The applicant could lodge an appeal against this decision with the administrative courts.

32. On 7 June 2005 the applicant was placed in a cell for ten days in a short-term detention facility in Jēkabpils District Police Department. According to him, the cell was very small measuring some 12 sq. m. and accommodating some 17 people. There were no windows and no ventilation, only the door with a little hole. The door was kept locked for 23 hours per day and opened for one hour to allow the detainees to attend communal toilets. A bucket was kept in the cell in case the detainees would need to use it during the remaining 23 hours. The detainees in his cell were constantly smoking and drinking. He submitted that the conditions had been unbearable and that he had had a headache every day.

33. He went on a hunger strike for seven days and did not drink any water for five days to protest against these conditions. According to the applicant, he did not receive any attention from the authorities in this regard.

34. The applicant submitted an application to the administration of the short-term detention facility in Jēkabpils. It was forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior on 9 June 2006. Its contents have not been specified and there is no indication of a reply.

35. The applicant lodged an appeal against decision no. 74 with the administrative courts.

36. On 23 March 2005 his application was accepted and the administrative proceedings were opened.

37. On 12 April 2005 the Administrative District Court forwarded to the applicant’s address in Jēkabpils the written submissions of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs in his case. The applicant was asked to indicate by 2 May 2005 if he would agree that the court examined his case in writing (rakstveida procedūra). Since he did not reply, the court could not examine the case without a hearing (see paragraph 51 below)

38. Following four hearings, on 19 December 2006, 16 January and 12 June 2007, and 5 August 2008, the case was left without examination on the latter date. This decision took effect on 16 August 2008.

39. The relevant provisions of the former Law on Entry and Residence in the Republic of Latvia of Aliens and Stateless Persons (Likums “Par ārvalstnieku un bezvalstnieku ieceļošanu un uzturēšanos Latvijas Republikā”) in force prior to 1 May 2003 read as follows:

The spouse of a Latvian citizen, if he or she is not a Latvian citizen, a non-citizen, or an alien or a stateless person who has obtained a permanent residence permit, shall be issued:

1) on the basis of a first application - a temporary residence permit for one year;

2) on the basis of a second application - a temporary residence permit for four years;

40. Since 1 May 2003 the law cited in the above paragraph is no longer in force; it has been repealed and replaced by the new Immigration Law.

41. Section 34 of the Immigration Law lists the circumstances in which a residence permit will not be issued. Paragraph 1, parts 2 and 3 provide that a residence permit must be refused if an alien has submitted false information or he or she does not have sufficient financial means to stay in Latvia.

42. Section 36 of the Immigration Law lists the grounds on which a permanent residence permit must be withdrawn. Paragraph 1, part 2 mentions as one of those grounds the fact that an alien has been included in the list of persons for whom entry into Latvia is refused.

43. Section 40, paragraph 1 of the Immigration Law at the material time provided that an appeal lies against a refusal to issue or withdrawal of a residence permit with the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs within 30 days from receipt. Under paragraph 2 only an alien legally residing in Latvia or its inviter could lodge an appeal against the refusal by the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs to issue a residence permit with the courts.

44. Section 47, paragraph 1, part 2 of the Immigration Law at the material time provided that an expulsion order had to be issued if an alien was detained by the State Border Guard Service. Under paragraph 3 an appeal laid against the expulsion order with the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs within seven days from receipt.

45. Section 51 of the Immigration Law lists the circumstances in which the State Border Guard Service may detain an alien. Paragraph 1, part 2 at the material time provided that an alien could be detained on grounds of public order and safety or for the protection of national security.

46. Section 61 of the Immigration Law states the circumstances in which an alien must be recorded into the list of persons for whom entry into Latvia is refused. Paragraph 1, part 2 provides that an alien is included in that list if a competent public authority has reasons to consider that the alien presents a threat to national security or public order and safety. Such decision is taken by the Minister of the Interior. At the material time, no appeal laid against the decision of the Minister of the Interior (section 61, paragraph 6). Following the Constitutional Court’s judgment (see paragraph 57 below), this provision was declared unconstitutional and void as of 1 May 2005. On 1 July 2005 amendments, which were adopted on 16 June 2005, took effect (“the 2005 amendments”). These amendments stipulated that “after an alien has become aware of [the decision to record him in the list under paragraph 1 of this section], he can lodge an appeal against it with the Senate of the Supreme Court”. No time-limit for such appeal was prescribed. By virtue of the transitional provisions, an alien could not appeal against the decision to record him in the list, if that decision was delivered to him before 30 April 2005. However, a request could be made to a competent body to review its decision on merits. Finally, if the circumstances on basis of which the alien was included in the list continued to subsist, a new decision was to be taken in accordance with a new section 61.¹, which reads as follows:

“(1) An opinion of a competent public authority regarding the existence of the conditions referred to in section 61, paragraph 1 of this Law shall be sent to the Minister of the Interior to adopt a decision.

(2) A decision concerning the recording of an alien in the list under section 61, paragraph 1 of this Law shall contain the following information:

3) the date and identifying number of the opinion regarding the existence of the conditions referred to in section 61, paragraph 1 of this Law;

7) an indication before which authority and in what time-limits this decision may be appealed.

(3) A decision to record an alien, who is not located in Latvia, in the list shall be issued at his or her request.

(4) The list shall be maintained and up-dated by the Office [of Citizenship and Migration Affairs] in accordance with the Cabinet regulations.”

47. Section 61, paragraph 4, part 3 of the Immigration Law provides that the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs must record an alien in the list of persons for whom entry into Latvia is refused if an expulsion order has been issued.

48. Section 62 of the Immigration Law (as in force before the 2005 amendments) provided in its first paragraph that the Security Police must inform the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs about the circumstances in which an alien was included in the list under section 61, paragraph 1 of that law if it was done on the national security or public order and safety grounds. Following the 2005 amendments, paragraph 1 provided that the appeal to the court does not defer the execution of the decision to include an alien in the list. With subsequent amendments to the Immigration Law, section 62 has been deleted.

49. Section 63, paragraph 2 of the Immigration Law provided at the material time that an alien could be excluded from Latvian territory for a five-year period if a forced expulsion order was issued. Under paragraph 3 of section 63 an alien could be excluded for an indefinite period of time if a decision was made under section 61, paragraph 1 of that law.

50. Section 64, paragraph 1 of the Immigration Law provided at the material time that the Minister of the Interior could reduce the alien’s exclusion period from Latvian territory or could remove the refusal to enter Latvia if the circumstances had changed. On 24 November 2005 that provision was amended and such a decision can only be taken by the Minister of the Interior upon a request from the alien.

51. Section 114, paragraph 1 of the Law of Administrative Procedure at the material time provided that the court could decide the case without a hearing (that is, in writing: rakstveida procedūra), if there were sufficient documents in the case-file and the parties had agreed to that procedure in writing.

52. Section 62 of the Law of Administrative Procedure as in force at the material time provided:

“(1) In deciding about an unfavourable administrative act to the addressee or a third party, an authority (iestāde) shall clarify and assess the views and arguments of the addressee or the third party in his or her case.

1) the issuance of the administrative act is urgent and any delay may directly endanger the security of the State, public order, or the life, health or property of persons;

3) it flows from the substance of the case that the clarification of the views of the person is impossible or inadequate.

(3) If an administrative act is issued in writing and the views and arguments of a person have not been clarified the reason shall be stated in the reasons for the administrative act.”

53. Section 70 of the Law of Administrative Procedure determines the point in time when an administrative act takes effect. Paragraph one of section 70 provides that when no particular provision has been made to the contrary, an administrative act takes effect when it is notified to the addressee. Under paragraph 2 of the same section, if an administrative act is sent to the addressee by post, it takes effect on the seventh day after its posting.

54. Section 76 of the Law of Administrative Procedure prescribes the general procedure for appeal against an administrative act. Under paragraph 2, as in force at the material time, an administrative act could be appealed against before an institutionally higher authority or another authority, as prescribed by law. If there was no such authority (or such authority was the Cabinet of Ministers), the administrative act could be appealed before the (administrative) courts.

55. Under section 188, paragraph 2 of the Law of Administrative Procedure an administrative act could be appealed against within one month from its entry into force.

56. The relevant part of the Law on State Security Authorities (Valsts drošības iestāZu likums), in force since 19 May 1994, reads as follows:

If a person considers that a state security authority has violated his or her legal rights and freedoms through its activities, this person shall be entitled to file a complaint with the prosecutor who, having reviewed the case, shall present a conclusion on the conformity to the law of the behaviour of the state security authority’s official. This person may also file a claim through court.

57. In its judgment of 6 December 2004 in case no. 2004-14-01 the Constitutional Court ruled that the provision according to which no appeal lies against the decision of the Minister of the Interior to record an alien in the list of persons for whom entry in Latvia was refused was unconstitutional and void from 1 May 2005.

58. In his first letter to the Court, posted on 18 July 2005, the applicant complained that the withdrawal of his permanent residence permit by virtue of decision no. 823 of 1 February 2005 had been unfair and that he did not present any threat to national security. He considered that his problems arose from the errors made by the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs while dealing with his application for the permanent residence permit. He submitted that the court proceedings concerning decision no. 74 of 15 March 2005 were delayed because the immigration authority did not wish that the courts examined his case and thus expelled him. He and his wife had allegedly called the court with a view to finding out the hearing dates but received an answer that none would take place as instructed by an unspecified Minister. The applicant urged the Court to help him get back to his family in Latvia. He denied that he had ever hurt his wife or children. In his further correspondence he maintained these complaints and relied on Articles 8, 12, 14 in this regard.

60. First of all, he complained about the conditions in the short-term detention facility in Jēkabpils without relying on any particular provision in the Convention.

61. Secondly, he complained about his arrest on 7 June 2005. He submitted that he had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest and that he could not complain about it and have its lawfulness reviewed by a court. Upon his detention he had not been given any information as to its grounds, only that he could apply to a prosecutor, which he did. He relied in substance on Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 of the Convention in this respect.

62. Thirdly, relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, he complained that he could not understand why the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs had asked unnecessary questions about the fact that his wife had moved to Daugavpils.

63. Fourthly, relying on Article 1 § 1 (a) and (b) of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, he considered that he had not been allowed to submit reasons against his expulsion on national security grounds. He only had had a dispute with his wife and the police had found it to constitute no crime. He could not have the arguments for his inclusion in the list (in other words, his case) reviewed.

64. Finally, relying on Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, he submitted once again that he loved his children very much and he had never presented any threat to them.

65. In his further correspondence the applicant also referred to Article 6 of the Convention in a general manner as concerns his expulsion.

A. Complaints under Article 5 §§ 2 and 4, Article 8 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 relating to the applicant’s expulsion

66. The applicant in essence complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the interference with his family life on account of his expulsion (see paragraph 58 above). He also alleged that the expulsion had been carried out in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see paragraph 63 above). Finally, he alleged that he had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest on 7 June 2005 and that he could not have its lawfulness reviewed by a court ; he relied in substance on Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 in that regard (see paragraph 61 above).

“2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

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.”

“1. An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed:

(c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons designated by that authority.

2. An alien may be expelled before the exercise of his rights under paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) of this Article, when such expulsion is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security.”

68. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

69. The applicant further complains under different Articles of the Convention about numerous violations of his Convention rights (see the remaining complaints in paragraphs 58 to 65 above).

70. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the interference with the applicant’s family life, the procedural safeguards as regards the applicant’s expulsion, the prompt reasons for his arrest on 7 June 2005 and the effective procedure for the review of its lawfulness;

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Pradeep SHARMA v Latvia - 28026/05 [2011] ECHR 120 (11 January 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/120.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 120