The appellant is a former USSR national, living in Latvia. The case is concerned with whether Latvia’s refusal of citizenship to a person who had criticised the Government, constituted a punitive measure in violation of that individual’s rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 and freedom of assembly and association under Article 11. The Court found no violation of articles 10 and 11 as the denial of citizenship did not affect the appellant’s relevant rights. Contrary, it highlighted that there is no “right to a nationality” under the Convention, and no provision of Latvian law indicates the appellant’s right to Latvian citizenship.
European Convention on Human Rights Article 10, 11, 13
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 15
Latvian Citizenship Law (Pilsonības likums) Article 18
The appellant was a ‘permanently resident non-citizen’ of the Republic of Latvia, a legal status granted to citizens of the former Soviet Union who had lost their Soviet citizenship following the dissolution of the USSR. Subsequently, he had not obtained any other nationality. The appellant was actively involved in demonstrations against the Latvian educational reform, and in this context participated in meetings, demonstrations, and made several public statements demanding the rights of the Russian-speaking population to receive education in their mother tongue. In 2004 his application for Latvian citizenship was refused by the Cabinet of Ministers and his subsequent appeals were unsuccessful. In his application to the European Court of Human Rights, he complained that this refusal was a punitive measure for his criticism against the Government.
The appellant argued that the denial of citizenship was a punitive measure against him in response to his political activities and statements and was an infringement of his rights under Articles 10 and 11. The applicant explained that he had been born in Latvia, his habitual residence and centre of interests were in Latvia, and his wife and two daughters lived in Latvia. He asserted that he had no genuine or effective links with any other country.
The refusal to grant him Latvian citizenship had had several immediate consequences, and he, therefore, remained a “noncitizen” and was excluded from his fully-fledged participation in the political process. He argued that issues pertaining to his nationality were not within the State’s exclusive competence if they affected his human rights. He argued that an international consensus existed, in relation to nationality laws and practices. The applicant argued that Latvia’s nationality laws had to be consistent with general principles of international law, in particular human rights law. Consequently, State discretion in granting nationality was not completely unfettered; referring to Article 15 § 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the applicant argued that decisions concerning nationality were to be examined in the light of human rights.
Lastly, he argued that the obligation to reduce statelessness limited State discretion, and, relying on Andrejeva v. Latvia, he asserted that Latvia was the only State where he had stable legal ties.
The Government insisted that the applicant’s complaint was a disguised attempt to argue with the fact that his naturalisation application had been refused. They maintained that the applicant had not shown how that refusal had interfered with or had otherwise had a negative impact on his rights and freedoms under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR Convention.
According to the Government, the denial of citizenship did not affect his rights and freedoms since he had freely expressed his political views and opinions in connection with the educational reform, and he had not subsequently been punished. Rather, the government argued that the refusal was merely an attempt to protect Latvian democracy.
Moreover, they stressed that under international law questions of nationality fall within the exclusive competence of States and is a matter solely within the domestic jurisdiction of States. In this regard the Latvian law did not guarantee a right to acquire Latvian citizenship by naturalisation; it merely provided for a right to apply for it if certain criteria were met. They found that the applicant’s statements and actions were disloyal to the fundamental values of the Republic of Latvia as a democratic State and consequently, he did not fulfil the loyalty precondition under Article 18 of the Citizenship Law.
The Court found articles 10 and 11 to be inapplicable, as the decision concerning naturalisation could not be considered punishment in relation to the appellant’s opinions. The Court ruled that it had not weakened his freedom of expression and participation in the public debate.
Furthermore, the Court found the appellant’s references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights inadmissible. The Convention does not include a “right to a nationality” similar to that in Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, there was no indication in domestic law to imply that the applicant had an unconditional right to Latvian citizenship or that the authorities’ decision could be seen as arbitrary.
In terms of the applicant’s second argument about the State’s obligation to reduce statelessness, the Court found that the applicant failed to show how being stateless under domestic law would have impeded his right to exercise his freedom of expression and assembly.
According to the Convention, the Court reiterated that arbitrary or discriminatory decisions in the field of nationality may raise issues in human rights law generally, and under the Convention specifically. However, neither the Convention specifically, nor international law in general, provides for the right to acquire a specific nationality. The Court observed that there is no provision in the Latvian Citizenship Law to indicate that the applicant could unconditionally claim a right to Latvian citizenship or that the negative decision of the Cabinet of Ministers could be seen as an arbitrary denial of such citizenship.
The Court judged in favour of the Government and held that there had been no violation of Article 10, 11, and 13 of the Convention.
Nottebohm, Liechtenstein v Guatemala, [1955] ICJ Rep 4, ICGJ 185
Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic [2014], IACrtHR C No. 282, §§ 253-64
Slivenko v. Latvia [GC] [2001], 48321/99
Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC] [2007], 60654/00
Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern [2010], C-135/08
Karassev v. Finland [1999], 31414/96
Genovese v. Malta [2011], 53124/09
Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC] [2009], 55707/00
Ezelin v. France 26 April [1991],11800/85
Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC] [1999], 26682/95
Lingens v. Austria, 8 July [19986], 9815/82
Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC] [1999], 21980/93
Tănase v. Moldova [GC] [2010], 7/08
Handyside v. the United Kingdom [1976], 5493/72
Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria [1988], 10126/82
Castells v. Spain [1992], 1798/85
Redfearn v. the United Kingdom [2012], 47335/06
Vogt v Germany [1995], 17851/91
Family K. and W. v. the Netherlands [1985], 11278/84
Slepčik v. the Netherlands [1996], 30913/96
Jazvinský v. Slovakia [2000], 33088/96
G. v. Germany [1987], 10833/84
Heinisch v. Germany [2011], 28274/08
Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC] [2012], 16354/06
Stoll v. Switzerland [GC] [2007], 69698/01
Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom [2005], 68416/01
Kudeshkina v. Russia [2009], 29492/05
Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC] [2004], 44158/98
S.A.S. v. France [GC] [2014], 43835/11
Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC] [2011], 23459/03
Lehideux and Isorni v. France [1998], 55/1997/839/1045
Garaudy v. France [2003], 65831/01
Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC] [2006], 58278/00
Slivenko and Others v. Latvia [GC] [2002], 48321/99I
Riener v. Bulgaria [2006], 46343/99
Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC] [2014], 26828/06
Slivenko v. Latvia [GC] [2003], 48321/99
Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC] [2007], 60654/00
Kolosovskiy v. Latvia [2004], 50183/99
Fehér and Dolník v. Slovakia [2013], 14927/12 and 30415/12
Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC] [2001], 41340/98