CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 octobre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 79 October 2005 Nagula v. Estonia (dec.) - 39203/02 Decision 25.10.2005 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Former Soviet Army officer refused an extension of his residence permit in view of his undertaking to relocate to Russia: inadmissible   In 2001 the applicant, a Russian national and former officer of the Soviet armed forces, and his wife were refused extension of their temporary residence permits in Estonia, where they had been living from 1981 to 1997 together with the applicant’s son and mother-in-law. In 1997 the applicant had benefited from an aid programme provided by the USA in the framework of which he had been allocated an apartment in Sochi, Russia. He had resettled there with his wife the same year and had requested the Estonian authorities to cancel their registration of residence in Tallinn. When agreeing to take part in the aid programme, he had signed a commitment to the USA to leave Estonia. In 1999 the Estonian Foreigners’ Act had been amended so as to bar issuing or extending residence permits to persons who had committed themselves to leaving Estonia and who had received an accommodation abroad within the framework of a foreign aid programme. The Court noted that the applicant and his wife had left Estonia voluntarily in order to be resettled in Russia, while the applicant’s son and mother-in-law had remained in Estonia. A first issue arising was whether the applicant had effectively waived any right that he had under Article 8 to maintain his residence in Estonia. The waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention must be made in an unequivocal manner and must not run counter to any important public interest. The Court was not persuaded by the applicant’s argument that his commitment to leave Estonia had been made only vis-à-vis the United States of America and not in respect of Estonia. On the evidence before the Court, in particular the applicant’s express declarations and the steps he took to honour his part of the resettlement agreement, he had to be considered to have waived unequivocally any rights he may have had under Article 8 to remain in Estonia. Furthermore, having regard to the Estonian-Russian treaty on troop withdrawals and the applicant’s commitment, the waiver did not appear to run counter to any public interest. Manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes