Minority issues in Latvia, No. 75

Prepared by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)

October 16, 2003

Content

- ECHR: a violation is declared in the case Slivenko v. Latvia

- CoE Human Rights Commissioner's recommendations: who cares?

- The Education Inspection controls activities of minority schoolchildren

- New body for protection of the state language to be created

- Use or misuse of ethnic factor?

- Naturalisation: more applications last month

- Socialist MP infuriates the Parliament

- Minorities in foreign policy

ECHR: a violation is declared in the case Slivenko v. Latvia

------------------------------------------------------------

The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case

Slivenko v. Latvia on October 10. The Grand Chamber has found a

violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life and home) of

the European Convention on Human Rights, but declared that it was not

necessary to deal separately with the applicants' complaints under

Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). There had been no violation

of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security); it was not necessary

to consider the applicants complaints under Article 5 § 4 (right to

have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). Each of the

two applicants is to be paid 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary

damage. Full text of the judgment is available in English and French at

the website of the European Court of Human Rights

(http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/default.asp?Language=en&Advanced=1).

We reported about the decision on admissibility in the case (see

Minority issues in Latvia, No. 43,

http://racoon.riga.lv/minelres/archive//02052002-09:04:27-1978.html).

The applicants contested the legality of the deportation carried out by

Latvia in respect of Tatjana and Karina Slivenko. Tatjana Slivenko had

been a resident of Latvia before she married Nikolaj Slivenko, Soviet

military officer, in 1980, while Karina is their daughter born in Latvia

in 1981 (for more details on the principal facts, see the Press release

issued by the Registrar of 9 October, 2003, at

http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2003/oct/Slivenkoeng.htm). The Court

declared admissible the complaints of Tatjana and Karina Slivenko under

Article 5, Article 8 and Article 14 of the Convention. The applicants

considered that their rights to liberty and security were violated

during their detentions in October 1998 and March 1999; their rights to

respect for their "private life", their "family life" and their "home"

were violated because of their removal; they were removed from Latvia as

members of the Russian-speaking ethnic minority and the family of a

former Russian military officer and were subjected to different

treatment than other non-original Latvian residents.

The Court noted that both applicants had developed, since birth, a

network of personal, social and economic ties constituting a private

life in Latvia. They also lost the apartment where they had lived. Their

removal from Latvia therefore constituted an interference with their

private life and home. Latvian authorities acted on the basis of the

bilateral treaty between Latvia and Russia. According to this treaty,

all persons who remained Russian military officers after January 1992,

as well as members of their families, had to leave Latvia when Russian

troops were withdrawn in 1994. Special reservation was made in respect

of those persons who permanently resided in Latvia before their

conscription to the Soviet army - these persons could stay in Latvia.

However, this reservation was not extended to the spouses of Russian

military servicemen who were born in Latvia or permanently resided there

before marriage, and to their children born in Latvia. The applicants'

removal could accordingly be considered to have been "in accordance with

the law".

Taking into account the wider context of the constitutional and

international law arrangements made after Latvia regained independence,

the Court accepted that the treaty and implementing measures had sought

to protect the interests of national security. The continued presence of

active servicemen of a foreign army might be seen as incompatible with

the sovereignty of an independent State and a threat to national

security. The public interest in the removal of them and their families

would therefore normally outweigh the individual's interest in staying.

However, removal measures might not always be justified. For example,

they did not apply to the same extent to retired officers and their

families.

It appeared - from information provided by the Latvian Government about

treatment of certain hardship cases - that the authorities considered

they had some latitude allowing them to ensure respect for private and

family life and home. Although decisions were taken on a case-by-case

basis, however, the authorities did not appear to have examined whether

each person presented a specific danger to national security or public

order, the public interest having been perceived rather in abstract

terms. A scheme for withdrawal of foreign troops and their families

based on a general finding that their removal was necessary for national

security was not as such incompatible with Article 8, but implementation

of such a scheme without any possibility of taking into account

individual circumstances was.

The applicants were integrated into Latvian society at the time and

could not be regarded as endangering national security because they were

part of Tatjana's father's family, who had retired in 1986, had remained

in the country and was not himself considered to present any such

danger. In all the circumstances, the applicants' removal could not be

regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society.

As regards the right to liberty and security (Article 5 § 1), the Court

noted that neither of the arrest warrants lacked a statutory basis in

domestic law and that there was no evidence that the police had acted in

bad faith or arbitrarily. The Court found that it was unnecessary to

examine the merits of the complaint based on Article 5 § 4, as the

applicants had been released speedily before any judicial review of the

lawfulness of their detention could take place.

Our commentary

Media commentaries on the case were often politicised. For example, some

Latvian-language newspapers wrote that the European Court of Human

Rights recognised that Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940

(although the term "occupation" itself is used only by judge Maruste

from Estonia in his dissenting opinion). In turn, Russian-language press

informed that ECHR will follow this precedent when dealing with other

cases concerning deportation of former Russian military officers and

their families, but the authorities have to guarantee a permanent

residence permit for the Slivenko family.

In our view, truth is somewhere in the middle. First of all, violation

is violation, even if only found in respect of one article out of eleven

alleged. According to the Court, there is no collision between the

European Convention on Human Rights (ratified by Latvia only in 1997)

and the LatvianRussian treaty of 1994 per se. However, human rights and

one of their fundamental principles the principle of proportionality

is to be observed in any case. It means that regardless of provisions of

international treaties each situation is to be analysed by national

authorities on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the level of

social integration of concrete persons.

This issue in respect of legislation is not so topical now, as the new

Immigration Law, in force since May 1, 2003, provides more effective

mechanism of court appeals in cases concerning possible deportation from

Latvia.

The authorities themselves have to decide if it is necessary to issue a

permanent residence permit for the Slivenko family to remedy the

violation. However, according to Article 46 § 2 of the European

Convention on Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers will supervise

execution of the judgment and evaluate it.

CoE Human Rights Commissioner's recommendations: who cares?

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe Alvaro

Gil-Robles has visited Latvia in order to monitor the situation with

human rights in the country. The Commissioner visited Riga, as well as

the second biggest city of Latvia, Daugavpils, where more than 80% of

residents belong to the Russian-speaking minorities.

During the visit, the Commissioner expressed his views about the Latvian

situation. Inter alia, he said, that the lack of citizenship for more

than 20% of population is a serious problem and Latvia should work on

solving it. Mr Gil-Robles recommended considering granting non-citizens

the right to vote in municipal elections, as well as to register as

citizens all the children of non-citizens, who were born after 1991 (now

it can be done only if the parents submit an application). He also

proposed to abolish the naturalization fee.

As regards the education reform 2004, the Commissioner stated, that here

the main problem is the lack of dialogue between authorities and those

directly affected by the reform. He also said, that he had heard no

doubts about the Latvian language being the only state language. Yet, he

stressed, that Latvia should ratify the Framework Convention for the

Protection of National Minorities, as well as streamline the legislation

and political practice in accordance with it. This would also mean

allowing communication with local authorities in minority languages in

regions where minorities live in substantial numbers.

Before the Commissioner's meeting with NGOs, schoolchildren and students

from the Headquarter for the support of Russian schools met him outside

the building. They were dressed in T-shirts with slogan "Hands off

Russian schools" and held posters with the same call. The youngsters

expressed their protest against the reform and explained their position

to the Commissioner. When the Commissioner had stepped inside the

building, the police detained some of the young people. After three

hours of detention (with adult representatives of the Headquarter

accompanying the youngsters), all were freed. As one of the activists

commented, "This tells much more about the situation with minority

rights than a visit to a particular school" (daily "Vesti Segodnya"

("The News Today"), October 7,

http://rus.delfi.lv/news/press/vesti/article.php?id=6472799).

Soon after it Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and

Public Affairs Ina Druviete declared that Latvia is not legally bound by

the recommendations of the Commissioner and "will have the opportunity

to object against them".

Our commentary

What is the most striking about the visit of the Commissioner is its

reflection in the media. To quote just some titles: "The advice of the

Human Rights Commissioner are just recommendations; they are not

obligatory" ("Diena" ("The Day"), October 9); "The Commissioner does not

threaten but recommends" ("Lauku Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper"), October

9), etc. Here is also the comment of the leading Latvian-language daily

"Diena": "The Commissioner acknowledges: the Council Of Europe can only

recommend, this means that his visit cannot cause any considerable

follow-up for Latvia" (October 9). "There are no threats in case if

Latvia does not follow the Commissioner's recommendations", stresses the

biggest Latvian-language newspaper "Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper",

October 8).

One can feel, how the media treat recommendations in the field of human

rights, how they are ready to promote respect towards human rights and

political will to observe it :-) .

One more thing that makes us feel anxious about further promotion of

minority rights in Latvia. Some days ago the President of Latvia had a

meeting with the President of the European Commission Romano Prodi.

During this meeting Mr Prodi reportedly declared that Latvia fulfils al

the criteria in the field of the society integration and the state

policy is being developed in the right direction. Comparing to

recommendations of Mr Gil-Robles, it could mean that the European Union

and the Council of Europe have totally different attitudes towards

minority related policy of the Republic of Latvia. Double standards to

be created?

The Education Inspection controls activities of minority schoolchildren

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Education Inspection investigates, how minority schools in Latvia

use money for informative travels in the framework of realizing the plan

for implementation of the education reform 2004. Among other things,

visit of pupils of the Lomonosov Riga Russian School to the President of

Russia Vladimir Putin and travel of schoolchildren to Strasbourg are to

be checked ("Lauku Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper"), October 9). We

reported about the latter travel in the previous issue of our newsletter

(see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 74,

http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2003-October/002974.html).

Representative of the Latvian Human Rights Committee Miroslav Mitrofanov

has informed that 25 schoolchildren participated in the travel to

Strasbourg legally, as parents have the right to ask for a free week for

their children. Only two pupils asked for a paper from the Latvian Human

Rights Committee about the visit. Deputy Head of the State Education

Inspection Valda Puise notes, that there is no such provision in the

legislation. Pupils have 15 days per year for education visits, but they

are to be connected with education programme. The Riga City Council's

Department of Education, Youth and Sport Affairs provided information

that the school itself considers the issues related to unattended

classes. Director of the Lomonosov Riga Russian School pointed out that

he was informed about the visit to Moscow; pupils from his school

attended classes in one of the Moscow schools during the event

("Telegraf" ("The Telegraph"), October 10,

http://rus.delfi.lv/archive/index.php?id=6507829).

Our commentary

According to information provided by media, approximately 5000 6000

children only in Riga do not attend school at all. In our view, this

issue requires much more attention of the State Education Inspection

than some short foreign visits of active minority schoolchildren. Sudden

interest of the Inspection makes one think rather about repressions for

undesirable civil activities. We would regret, if the freedom of

expression will be limited using the undisputable necessity to receive

education. Besides, one should not forget that civil education is as

significant as the school's one, at least in a democratic society.

New body for protection of the state language to be created

------------------------------------------------------------

The Cabinet of Ministers adopted the Concept on the State Language

Agency on October 7. The Agency will be a new institution to deal with

the issues of the state language. One of the most active supporters of

this decision is Mara Zalite, the Head of the President's Commission on

the State Language. She believes that it is necessary to have a special

state language agency in order to develop the Latvian language.

According to her, "the struggle for the state language will never end"

("Lauku Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper"), October 7).

There is already a number of other institutions dealing with the issues

of protection and development of the state language: the President's

Commission on the State Language, State Language Centre (language

inspection within the Ministry of Justice) with its Commission of

Experts in the Latvian Language, the Institute of the Latvian Language

at the University of Latvia, Centre of Terminology and Translation and

Terminology Committee of the Academy of Sciences. Besides, the

Examination Centre of the Ministry of Education and Science holds the

examinations necessary for receiving the state language proficiency

certificates of employees; National Programme for Latvian Language

Training manages state-supported educational programmes for the state

language training.

Our commentary

In our view, the Concept on the State Language Agency has made clear

some problems and contradictions within the field. For instance, there

is still no clear division of competence between the new agency and

already existing institutions. This process makes an impression of a

simple duplication of functions. However, it seems that the tendency is

obvious in future the Ministry of Education and Science will be the

one responsible for the state language policy. The State Language Centre

of the Ministry of Justice will maintain the functions of language

inspection only.

Use or misuse of ethnic factor?

-------------------------------

Schoolchildren at the Riga secondary school's No. 63 refuse to visit

classes by Benita Kaprane, teacher of the Latvian language. According to

them,

Benita Kaprane had insulted them, thus spreading ethnic hatred.

Benita Kaprane notes, that she has pupils of different ethnic background

in her classes and had never spread ethnic hatred. Pupils from other

forms say that claimants are too lazy. Natalya Naumetsa, director of the

school, agrees, noting that pupils had visited only one lesson and then

came with a claim to change the teacher.

Yelena Matyakubova, chief specialist on minority education at the Riga

City Council's Department of Education, Youth and Sport Affairs sees

psychological rather than ethnic reasons for the conflict and notes that

there was no such precedent in Riga yet. Still as the newspaper "Rigas

Balss" recalls, there were conflicts between Latvian and

Russian-speaking teachers in the secondary school No. 95, which resulted

in the change of the school's director ("Rigas Balss" ("The Voice of

Riga"), October 6).

Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Public Affairs

Ina Druviete considers the event "a provocation of some pupils and their

families aimed at discrediting the teacher and the Latvian language".

She thinks that actions against education reform could instigate the

events. The Committee has decided to forward the teacher's claim to the

National Human Rights Office ("Rigas Balss" ("The Voice of Riga"),

October 9).

Naturalisation: more applications last month

--------------------------------------------

According to data provided by the Naturalisation Board, 1,155 persons

submitted naturalisation applications in September 2003 (compare to 503

in September 2002). Average number of naturalisation applications in

2003 was 600-800 per month. Deputy Head of the Naturalisation Board

Janis Kahanovics believes that the main reason for such growth is that

the Board held Latvian-language courses free of charge for

naturalisation applicants. However, a lot of non-citizens, who already

know the Latvian language, submit their applications. According to Mr

Kahanovics, for them the reason could be Latvia's EU accession in May

2004, when the citizens of Latvia will become the citizens of the

European Union ("Telegraf" ("The Telegraph"), October 14,

http://rus.delfi.lv/news/press/telegraf/article.php?id=6531974).

Socialist MP infuriates the Parliament

--------------------------------------

MP Martiyan Bekasov (the Socialist Party), Latvian observer in the

European Parliament (GUE/UEL group), has infuriated colleagues in the

natinal parliament when distributing information on minority situation

in Latvia. Bekasov has written a letter addressed to MEPs, containing

information on status of minorities in Latvia, number of non-citizens

and social situation in the country. Bekasov noted that 1/4 of Latvian

population are non-citizens, informed about 20 differences in rights of

citizens and non-citizens and difficulties in finding job due to

unreasonable language proficiency requirements. Main critic against

Bekasov, nationalistic party "For Fatherland and Freedom"/LNNK, has

found mistakes in French translation of the letter: for example, name of

the first President of Latvia written incorrectly. The party suggested

to appoint another observer in the EP instead of Mr Bekasov. Head of the

Socialist Party's faction in the Saeima Alexander Golubov described the

situation as political games in the nationalistic party's usual style

("Vesti Segodnya" ("The News Today"),

http://rus.delfi.lv/archive/index.php ?id=6463237).

Minorities in foreign policy

----------------------------

The Latvian-language newspaper "Lauku Avize" has published an article

about the conference "Minorities in foreign policy of Latvia", held by

LATO, organization for support of Latvia's membership in NATO ("The

Rural Newspaper", October 9).

According to public opinion polls, the biggest part of Russians in

Latvia do

not support joining NATO and the European Union. The influence of the

Russian-language

press was mentioned as one of the major reasons of their negative attitude.

There is an opinion that the Russian-language press offers a lot of

articles about Russia every day, but writes almost nothing about the EU.

As Mr Raudseps, deputy editor of the Latvian-language newspaper "Diena",

pointed out, it is the Embassy of Russia, which requires favourable

attitude from the Russian-language newspapers' editors.

Sergey Kruk, lecturer of the University of Latvia, thinks that the Russian-

language press writes about politics ironically, but cannot provide

readers with relevant information. They only publish professional

articles on economic issues, because Russians take an active part in

this area. There was also an opinion that Russians feel alienated and

therefore are striving for attention. Protest actions against the

education reform were mentioned as examples of it. Mr Kruk offered to

create an official governmental newspaper in

Russian.

Also other were methods offered. According to one proposal, state

officials often "flirt with the Russian-language press", which is not

correct. They should be sterner and maybe even refuse to give an

interview to journalists from the Russian-language press (!).

---------------

Compiled by:

Tatyana Bogushevitch

Yuri Dubrovsky

Gennady Kotov

Alyona Babitch

Milada Fomina

Milana Fomina

Alexander Kiselyov

--

===========================================================

Minority issues in Latvia

Newsletter published by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)

Subscription/inquiries: minissues@delfi.lv

Back issues:

http://www.minelres.lv/count/latvia.htm#MinIssuesLatvia

===========================================================

===========================================================