FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF SHARMA v. LATVIA

(Applicati on no. 28026/05)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

24 March 2016

FINAL

2 4 /06/2016

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Sharma v. Latvia,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Angelika Nußberger, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Erik Møse, Faris Vehabović, Yonko Grozev, Síofra O ’ Leary, Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek , Secti on Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 1 March 2016 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an applicati on (no. 28026/05) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Conventi on for the Protecti on of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Indian national, Mr Pradeep Sharma (“the applicant”), on 18 July 2005 .

2 . The applicant, who had been granted le gal aid, was represented by Mr A. Castelino, a lawyer practising in Delhi. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent s , Mrs I. Reine and later Mrs K. Līce .

3 . The applicant complained , in particular, about interference with his family life and absence of procedural safe guards as regards his expulsion; that he had not been promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest on 7 June 2005 , and that there had been no effective procedure s for the review of its lawfulness.

4 . On 11 January 2011 the above-mentioned complaints were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the applicati on was declared inadmissible .

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5 . The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in New Delhi , India.

A . The applicant ’ s stay in Latvia and the events leading to the expulsi on proceedings

6 . The applicant arrived in Latvia in May 1999 [in his observations, he mentions 1989 or 1992 and studies at Riga Aviati on University] . He married a Latvian national on 2 July 1999. They have two daughters, born in Latvia on 19 January 1999 and 18 April 2000 respectively.

7 . In August 1999 and August 2000 the applicant was issued a temporary residence permit for one year and four years respectivel y on the grounds of his m arriage to a Latvian national. Under the domestic law which was applicable at the material ti me, following the expiry of the four ‑ year period the applicant was entitled to a permanent residence permit.

8 . On 21 June 2004 the applicant ’ s documents for the permanent residence permit were accepted.

9 . On 11 August 2004 the applicant ’ s wife asked the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs ( Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvaldes Ārzemnieku apkalpošanas departaments ) to check the informati on submitted by the applicant for the permanent residence permit in relati on to his employment in Latvia.

10 . On 21 September 2004 the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs refused to grant the permanent residence permit to the applicant on the grounds that he had submitted false informati on and did not have sufficient financial means to stay in Latvia.

11 . According to the Government, on 30 September 2004 the applicant ’ s wife wrote the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs a short letter stating that “my husband ... was refused a permanent residence permit; I would like to object to this.” This objecti on was accompanied by another letter requesting to ignore the former, as it had been drawn up under threat by the applicant . She asked for help and for the applica nt to be refused leave to remain in Latvia .

The applicant disagreed with the allega tions contained in this letter.

12 . On 13 November 2004 the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs overturned the decisi on of 21 September 2004 (see above) . It was concluded that t he applicant had sufficient financial means and that no false informati on had been submitted by him. A permanent residence permit, valid until 9 July 2010 , was then issued for the applicant .

13 . On 6 December 2004 the applicant ’ s wife reported a d omestic conflict to the police . According to her , on 4 and 5 December, when she had attempted to talk t o the applicant about a divorce, h e had allegedly tried to suffocate her and had inflicted bodily injuries on her. The applicant disagreed with his wife ’ s versi on 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 had taken their children to live in another city in Latvia .

14 . Following a forensic examination, unspecified minor inju ries were found on the applicant wife ’ s body . On 29 December 2004 the police refused to open criminal proceedings , on the ground that no offence had been committed. No appeal was lodged against that decision.

15 . Meanwhile, on 9 December 2004, the applicant ’ s wife applied to the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs with a view to withdrawing the applicant ’ s permanent residence permit and expelling him from Latvia on the grounds that he presented threats to her life and health and those of their children . She mentioned her previous letters to the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs . When the applicant had found out about them , he had asked for them to be recalled and had promised to stop the abuse he had been engaging in . She had done so . Nevertheless, when the permanent residence permit had been issued “it had started all over again”. The applicant had allegedly threatened to cripple her if he had to leave Latvia , and also to kill her, the children and himself.

The applicant denied the allegations contained in this letter.

16 . On 15 December 2004 h er letter was forwarded to the Security Police ( Drošības policija ) for an assessment of the applicant ’ s character and to determine if he presented threats to national security or public order.

B . The decisi on to include the applicant in the list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia ( hereinafter “the blacklist”)

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

18 . On 20 Jan uary 2005 the Minister of Interior decided to include the applicant in the blacklist for an indefinite period of time , on the ground that he constituted a threat to public order and safety, and decided to refuse him entry to Latvia. This decisi on was n ot amenable to judicial review at the time . Following legislative changes (see paragraph 45 below) the persistence of the grounds for the inclusi on in the blacklist could be re - examined by the Minister of Interior; the applicant attempted to avail himself of this remedy ( see paragraph 21 below).

19 . On 24 March 2005 the Minister of Interior replied t o the applicant ’ s enquiry of 22 February 2005 and, having reviewed the applicant ’ s case, concluded that the applicant could not be removed from the blacklist .

20 . On 14 April 2005 the applicant ’ s wife applied to the Ministry of the Interior claiming that notwithstanding her previous letters expressing her wish for the applicant to leave the country their relations had improved and she wished to maintain her family and not to separate the applicant from their children. If he had to leave she and their child ren would probably follow him. In reply, the Minister explained that her subjective feelings towards the applicant did not imply a change in the circumstances on the basis of which the applicant had been included in the blacklist .

21 . On 25 May 2005 the applicant applied to the Minister of Interior with a view to removing the prohibiti on on entering Latvia. He submitted that the relationship with his spouse had improved and that she and their children d id not wish him to leav e Latvia.

22 . On 27 May 2005 the Security Police wrote to the Ministry of the Interior informing them that the applicant constituted a threat to public order and safety . On 31 May 2005 the Security Police informed the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs that the applicant had been included in the list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia , confirming their view that the applicant constituted a threat to public order and safety; there had been no change in th ose circumsta nces. In view of this, they asked the State Bo rder Guard Service to detain and expel the applican t in accordance with secti on 51 , paragraph 1, part 2 of the Immigrati on Law.

23 . On 13 J une 2005 the Minister of Interior adopted decisi on no. 121 and refused to remove the applicant from the black list. The decisi on was sent to the applica nt ’ s address in J ē kabpils. In the decision, the Mini ster relied on the letter of 27 May 2005 informing him that the circumstances on the basis of which the applicant had been included in the black list had not changed. Thus the Minister could not remove the prohibiti on on entering Latvia. The applicant ’ s submissions could not serve as the basis for his removal from the black list , since a pers on could not choose his country of residence under either domestic or international law . States were not obliged to respect couples ’ choices concerning their country of residence. N or were there any reasons detected why the applicant ’ s family could not join the applicant in India and enjoy their family life there . The Minister concluded that the restrictions on the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life were justified in the interests of public order and safety and were proportionate. As regards the procedure for appeal, a reference was made to secti on 76, paragraph 2 and secti on 188, paragraph 2 of the Administrative Procedure Law which provided for an appeal to the administrative court.

24 . The applicant did not appeal.

C . Other proceedings following the decisi on of the Minister of Interior of 20 January 2005 to include the applicant in the blacklist

1. Withdrawal of the applicant ’ s permanent residence permit

25 . On 1 February 2005 the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs adopted decisi on no. 823 by which the applicant ’ s permanent residence permit was withdrawn on the grounds that he had been included in the black list (secti on 36 , paragraph 1, part 2 of the Immigrati on Law) . The decisi on was based on the decisi on of 20 January 2005 ( see paragraph 18 above). It was drawn up on the basis of informati on and documents received from the Ministry of the Interior . T he decisi on indicated that pursuant to secti on 70 of the Administrative Procedure Law (see paragraph 50 below) it was to take ef fect up on notificati on to the applicant. The decisi on also stated that the applicant was obliged to leave the country within forty-five days. On 14 February 2005 the applicant was informed of the decisi on and of the fact that he was t o leave the country by 26 March 2005. The applicant lodged an a ppeal against this decisi on with the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs.

26 . On 15 March 2005 the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs rejected the applicant ’ s appeal against the withdrawal of the residence permit . It found that the applicant had been lawfully included in the list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia . Taking into account that the decisi on to include the applicant in the black list was in force and had not been declared unlawful, it was impossible for the applicant to stay in Latvia . It further considered that the contested decisi on complied with the rule of law, and that it was taken in the interests of national security, public order and safety and for protecti on of the rights of others, namely the spouse and children. It was proportionate because the protecti on of the interests of society in assuring 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 immigrati on control, to Article 8 of the Conventi on under which the interference with the applicant ’ s family life could be justified , and to the 2004 report of the Committee on the Eliminati on of Discriminati on against Women (CEDAW) concerning Latvia.

27 . On 23 March 2005 the applicant ’ s appeal against the decisi on to withdraw his permanent residence permit was allowed by the Administrative District C ourt .

28 . 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 Migrati on Affairs in his case. The applicant was asked to indicate by 2 May 2005 if he would agree for the court to examine his case in writ ten proceedings ( rakstveida procedūra ). Since he did not reply, the court could not exa mine the case without a hearing.

29 . Following four hearings ( on 19 December 2006, 16 January and 12 June 2007, and 5 August 2008 ) , the case was left without determinati on on the grounds that the applicant had failed to appear before the court. This decisi on took effect on 16 August 2008. All the court correspondence was sent to the applicant ’ s address in India. His wife was invited as a third party to the proceedings.

2. The a pplicant ’ s detenti on and expulsion

30 . Meanwhile, on 7 June 2005 the applicant was detained by State Border Guard Service officials under secti on 51 , paragraph 1, part 2 of the Immigrati on Law on the ground that he constituted a threat to national security or public order and safety . T he detenti on record also stated that by a decisi on of the Minister of Interior the applicant had been included in the blacklist, and that on 14 February 2005 his permanent residence permit had been withdrawn . The applicant signed the detenti on record and h e was placed in a short-term detenti on facility in JÄ“kabpils , where he stayed until 17 June 2005.

31 . The applicant lodge d a complaint with a prosecutor, arguing that he had been unlawfully detained on the grounds of lack of a valid residence permit. On 14 June 2005 a prosecutor replied that the applicant ’ s detenti on was lawful and had been 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 for continued detention . It was noted that on 31 May 2005 the Security Police had informed the State Border Guard Service that the app licant had been included in the black list. Finally, it was noted that the applicant ’ s detenti on as such did not automatically entail his expulsion. An expulsi on order should be issued within ten days of the applicant ’ s detention. The applicant was informed that he could lodge an appeal against this reply with a superior prosecutor.

32 . On 13 June 2005 the J ē kabpils branch of the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs adopted an expulsi on order , no. 23-7 ( lēmums par ārzemnieka piespiedu izraidīšanu ) under secti on 47, paragraph 1, part 2 of the Immigrati on Law , 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. The decisi on took effect the same day , when it was notified to the applicant . On 14 June 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal against the expulsi on order with the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs .

33 . On 16 June 2005, following a closed hearing, a judge of the Jēkabpils District Court authorised the applicant ’ s detenti on for two more months. The judge heard the applicant and decided that he was to be transferred to an accommodati on centre for foreign detainees in Olaine. He could not yet be expelled because he had lod ged an appeal against order no. 23-7 , and thus the judge considered that it was necessary to extend his detention. No appeal against the decisi on was lodged.

34 . On 17 June 20 05 the applicant was transferred to an accommodati on centre for foreign detainees in Olaine.

35 . On 30 June 2005 the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs adopted a decisi on under secti on 61, paragraph 4, part 3 of the Immigrati on Law (see paragraph 46 below), including the applicant in the list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia until 13 June 2010 . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decisi on with the a dministrative courts.

36 . On 11 July 2005 the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the expulsi on order (see para graph 32 above) . The decisi on stated that it came into ef fect pursuant to secti on 70 of the Administrative Procedure Law and could be amenable to judicial rev iew by the a dministrative court within one month of its coming into effect .

37 . On 13 July 2005 t his decisi on was sent to the accommodati on centre for foreign detainees in Olaine. It was not served on the applicant because m eanwhile, on 12 July 2005 , the applicant had been expelled from Latvia to India.

D . Events subsequent to the communicati on of the present application

38 . Up on the applicant ’ s request, on 30 March 2011 the Minister of Interior adopted decisi on no. 26 entitled “Removal of prohibiti on on enter ing the Republic of Latvia”. On the basis of informati on received from the State Police and the Security Police and secti on 64 , paragraph 1, part 1 of the Immigrati on Law the Minister decided to remove the applicant from the blacklist . The decisi on took effect immediately.

39 . On 29 April 2011, in response to an email from the applicant, the Ministry of the Interior explained that he had been included in the black list on the basis of decisi on no. 72 of 20 January 2005 and that he could not appeal against the decision, but he could ask the competent authority to review that decisi on (reference was made to paragraph 7 of the transitional provisions of the Immigrati on Law). They also informed him that according to the Immigrati on Law the reasons for the applicant ’ s inclusi on in the list could not be disclosed. Having received the applicant ’ s request for a review of the decision, the Ministry of the Interior had made enquiries with the State Police and the Security Police . They had received answers that threats under secti on 61, paragraph 1 of the Immigrati on Law were not present. Accordingly, the a bove decisi on was adopted . Lastly, in response to the applicant ’ s questi on whether he could now enter Latvia or receive a permanent residence permit, reference was made to the Immigrati on Law and the procedure established therein.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

A. The Immigrati on Law

1. R esidence permits

40 . Secti on 36 of the Immigrati on Law lists the grounds on which a permanent residence perm it must be withdrawn. Paragraph 1, part 2 mentions as one of those grounds the fact that an alien h as been included in the list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia .

41 . Secti on 40, paragraph 1 of the Immigrati on Law at the material time provided that an appeal lies against a refusal to issue , or withdrawal of , a residence permit to the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs within thirty days of receipt. Under paragraph 2 only an alien legally residing in Latvia or their inviter in Latvia could lodge an appeal in cour t against a refusal by the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs to issue a residence permit.

2. E xpulsi on orders

42 . Secti on 47, paragraph 1, part 2 of the Immigrati on Law at the material time provided that an expulsi on order had to be issued if an alien was detained by the State Border Guard Service. Under paragraph 3 the expulsi on order could be appealed against to the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs within seven days of receipt.

3. D etenti on of aliens

43 . Secti on 51 of the Immigrati on 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 protecti on of national security.

44 . At the material time s ecti on 54 provided that an official of the State Border Guard Service had a right to detain an alien for a maximum of ten days. Such decisions were not subject to court review but cou ld be appealed against to a prosecutor (secti on 56) . With the amendments which became effective on 27 December 2005 the secti on stipulated that the decision s of the State Border Guard Service were amenable to court review.

4. T he list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia

45 . Secti on 61 of the Immigrati on Law states the circumstances in which an alien may be placed on the list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia . Paragraph 1, part 2 provides that an alien is included in that list if a competent public authority has reasons to consider that the pers on presents a threat to national security or public order and safety. Such a decisi on is taken by the Minister of Interior. At the material time no appeal la y against the decisi on of the Minister of Interior (secti on 61, paragraph 6). Following the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment (see paragraph 55 below), this provisi on was declared unconstitutional and void as of 1 May 2005. On 1 July 2005 amend ments, which were adopted on 16 June 2005, took effect. These amendments stipulated that “after an alien has become aware of [the decisi on to place him on the list under paragraph 1 of this s ection], he can lodge an appeal to the Senate of the Supreme Court”. No time-limit for such an appeal was prescribed. By virtue of the transitional provisions (paragraph 7) , an alien could not appeal against the decisi on to place him on the list if that decisi on had been delivered to him before 30 April 2005. However, a request could be made to a competent body to review its decisi on on the merits.

46 . Secti on 61, paragraph 4, part 3 of the Immigrati on Law provides that if an expulsi on order has been issued, the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs must place an alien on the list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia.

47 . Secti on 62 of the Immigrati on Law (as in force before the 1 July 2005 amendments) provided in its first paragraph that the Security Police must inform the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs about the circumstances in which an alien had been placed on the list under secti on 61, paragraph 1 of that law if it was done on national security or public order and safety grounds.

Following the amendments which came into effect on 1 July 2005 , secti on 62, paragraph 1 provided that “ an appeal to court ” does not suspend the executi on of the decisi on to include an alien in the list. With subsequent amendments of 26 January 2006 to the Immigrati on Law, secti on 62 was deleted.

48 . Secti on 63, paragraph 2 of the Immigrati on Law provided at the material time that an alien could be excluded from Latvian territory for a five-year period if a forced expulsi on order had been issued. Under secti on 63 , paragraph 3 an alien could be excluded for an indefinite period of time if a decisi on was made under secti on 61, paragraph 1 of that law.

49 . Secti on 64, paragraph 1 of the Immigrati on Law provided at the material time that the Minister of Interior could reduce the alien ’ s period of exclusi on from Latvian territory or could remove the ban on entry to Latvia if the circumstan ces had changed. On 24 November 2005 that provisi on was amended and such a decisi on could subsequently only be taken by the Minister of Interior up on a request from the alien.

B. The Administrative Procedure Law

50 . Secti on 70 of the Administrative Procedure Law determines the point in time when an administrative act takes effect. S ecti on 70 , paragraph 1 provides that when no particular provisi on 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.

51 . Secti on 76 prescribes the general procedure for a hierarchical 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 if the authority was the Cabinet of Ministers), the administrative act could be appealed against before the (administrative) courts.

52 . Secti on 80 provides that an appeal against a contested administrative act to an institutionally higher authority or another authority suspends its effect from the moment the appeal is recei ved by the authority (paragraph 1). If the higher authority leaves the administrative act unchanged, its effect continues from the day the period of the appeal expire s if no appeal ha s been brought against it.

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

54 . Secti on 360 sets out the conditions for compulsory executi on of an administrative act. Paragraph 1 provides that an administrative act shall be compulsor il y executed where the following aggregate circumstances coexist: 1) the administrative act has come into effect (secti on 70); 2) the administrative act has become non-disputable (secti on 76); and 3) at the time of the commencement of compulsory executi on the administrative act has not been executed voluntarily. Under paragraph 2 an administrative act may be executed on a compulsory basis from the moment it comes into effect, without waiting until it becomes indisputable if: 1) compulsory executi on from the moment it comes into effect is provided for by another law; 2) the authority specifically determines it in the administrative act, justifying such urgency on the basis that any delay may directly endanger State security, public order, or the life, health or property of persons; or 3) the administrative act is issued orally on the grounds of urgency. Under paragraph 3, an administrative act adopted by the police, the border guard, the national guard, the fire service and other officials authorised by law which are issued to urgently prevent a direct danger to State security, public order, or the life, health or property of persons , may be executed on a compulsory basis from the moment they come into effect.

C. The domestic case-law

1. The Constitutional Court

55 . In its judgment of 6 December 2004 in case no. 2004-14-01 the Constitutional Court ruled that secti on 61(6) of the Immigrati on Law, according to which no appeal lies against the decisi on of the Minister of Interior to place an alien on the list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia , was unconstitutional and void from 1 May 2005.

2. The Administrative Cases Divisi on of the Senate of the Supreme Court

56 . On 2 September 2004 , by a decisi on of the Minister of Interior of the Republic of Latvia , a certain A.K. was included in the blacklist on national security grounds (secti on 61 of the Immigrati on Law). The above decisi on resulted in expulsi on proceedings against A.K . Following the leg islative amendments (see paragraph 45 above ), on 5 September 2005 A.K. asked the Minister of Interior to review his decision. The Minister of Interior upheld his earlier findings , and in November 2005 the applicant appealed against the Minister ’ s decisi on to the Administrative Cases Divisi on of the Senate of the Supreme Court .

The latter adopted a judgment on 24 February 2006 and established that the Minister of Interior does not need to specify the activities of the particular pers on posing threats to national security, nevertheless the Minister has to ascertain whether the pers on concern ed has close personal, economic or social ties with Latvia, as well as other issues closely related to that person ’ s private life. In A.K. ’ s case the failure of the Minister of Interior to provide such an assessment constituted a violati on of A.K. ’ s human rights , and accordingly the disputed decisi on was repealed from the date of its adoption.

D . Other relevant documents

57 . The r elevant part of the Explanatory Report to the Protocol No. 7 to the Conventi on for the Protecti on of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms :

“ 9. As to its field of application, this article only concerns an alien lawfully resident in the terr itory of the State in question.

The word “ resident ” is intended to exclude from the applicati on o f the article any alien who has arrived at a port or other point of entry but has not yet passed through the immigrati on control , or who has been admitted to the territory for the purpose only of transit or for a limited period for a non-residential purpose. This period also covers the period pending a decisi on on a request for a residence permit.

The word lawfully refers to the domestic law of the State concerned. It is therefore for domestic law to determine the conditions which must be fulfi lled for a person ’ s presence in the terr itory to be considered "lawful".

The provisi on applies not only to aliens who have entered lawfu lly but also to aliens who have entered unlawfully and whose positi on has been subsequently regularised. However, an alien whose admissi on and stay were subject to certain conditions, for example a fixed period, and who no longer complies with these conditions cannot be reg arded as being still "lawfully" present. ”

THE LAW

I . ALLEGED VIOLATI ON OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTIO N

58 . The applicant complained that his expulsi on was in breach with his right to respect for family life as provided in Article 8 of the Convention , which reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... family life ...

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 preventi on of disorder or crime, for the protecti on of health or morals, or for the protecti on of the rights and freedoms of others.”

A. Applicati on of Article 37 of the Convention

59 . With reference to several previous cases against Latvia ( Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia , ( striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, ECHR 2007 ‑ I; Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 59643/00, 7 December 2007; and Shevanova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 58822/00, 7 December 2007), the Government invited the Court to strike the applicati on out of its list of cases as “the matter has been resolved” as far as the complaint under Article 8 of the Conventi on was concerned. They referred to the fact that the prohibiti on on enter ing Latvia had been lifted on 30 March 2011.

60 . The applicant did not comment on this matter.

61 . The Court observes that in all the cases cited by the Government the Court decided that the matter giving rise to the complaint had been “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) on the grounds that the applicant had no real and imminent risk of being deported, as the expulsi on orders had ceased to be enforceable. In all the above-mentioned cases the applicants had never left the territory of Latvia and continued to enjoy family life there . In the present case, however, it is not disputed that the expulsi on order of 13 June 2005 (see paragraph 32 above) was executed on 12 July 2005 when the applicant was expelled to India, and that the ban on entry to the territory of Latvia in respect of the applicant was revoked only in March 2011. In the light of the above , the Court consider s that th ere exist no circumstances leading to the conclusi on that it is no longer justified to continue the examinati on of the c omplaint.

62 . The Court accordingly dismisses the Government ’ s request .

B. Admissibility

63 . The Government further argued that the applicant had failed to use the appropriate remedies in respect of each particular decisi on adopted by the compete nt State authorities within his expulsi on proceedings. By relying on the case-law of the Administrative Cases Divisi on of the Senate of the Supreme Court , t he Government argued in particular that the expulsi on proceedings for the pers on concerned constitute d a “ uniform process ” and that the a dministrative court, when examining a particular decisi on adopted in the course of expulsi on proceedings, cannot address each particular decisi on in isolation. Accordingly, the applicant should have made an applicati on to the administrative courts and should have lodge d appeals with the administrative court against the decisi on adopted by the Minister of Interior on 13 June 2005 (see paragraph 23 above) and the decisi on adopted by the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs on 11 July 2005 (see paragraph 36 above). The Government further contended that after th e legislative changes of 1 July 2005 the applicant had to ask the Minister of Interior for re-examinati on of the decisi on to put his name on the blacklist.

64 . The applicant stated that he had asked the Minister of Interior to review his initial decisi on to include him in the list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia , but that his arguments had not been considered , and on 13 June 2005 the Minister had dismissed the applicant ’ s request.

65 . The Court reiterates that the obligati on to exhaust domestic remedies requires an applicant to make normal use of remedies which are available and sufficient in respect of his or her Conventi on grievances. The existence of the remedies in questi on must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. To be effective, a remedy must be capable of directly redressing the impugned state of affairs and must offer reasonable prospects of success (see Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10 , § 116, 23 February 2016, and the case-law cited therein).

66 . At the outset t he Court observes that by the decisi on of the Minister of Interior of 20 January 2005 the applicant was included in the list of persons prohibited from entering in Latvia (also referred to as a blacklist ). That decisi on triggered several subsequent proceedings under the Immigrati on Law, namely withdrawal of the applicant ’ s permanent residence permit ( see paragraph 25 above ) , the applicant ’ s detenti on (see paragraph 30 above) and his expulsi on from the territory of Latvia ( see paragraph 32 ) . T he decisi on of the Minister of Interior of 20 January 2005 was at the origin of the ensuing proceedings whose outcome was closely related to the validity of that decision.

67 . It is true that a t the time the Minister of Interior adopted the decisi on of 20 January 2005 it was not amenable to judic ial review. H owever , following the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 6 December 2004 (see paragraph 55 above), the decisi on could be reassessed on its substance by the Minister of Interior . In the applicant ’ s case such a re-examinati on of his situati on resulted in the decisi on adopted by the Minister of Interior on 13 June 2005 (see paragraph 23 above) . The applicant was duly informed that a n appeal against the above decisi on lay with the a dministrative court .

68 . R eferring to the decisi on of the Administrative Cases Divisi on of the Senate of the Supreme Court of 24 February 2006 (see paragraph 56 above) the Court observes that at the material time the administrative c ourt ha d examined a n identical complaint submitted by another pers on who had been included in the blacklist on national security grounds . The Senate of the Supreme Court found that the Minister of In terior had not carried out a proportionality test as required under Article 8 of the Convention, and owing to this procedural shortcoming the contested decisi on was repealed. In the light of the above the Court considers that a review by the administrative c ourt of the decisi on of the Minister of Interior could in practice provide a remedy which is appropriate and effective for the appl icant ’ s complaint under Article 8. The Court also notes that the applicant did not submit that he was not able to make use of the remedy , nor did he put forward any other arguments which could absolve him from the requirement to exhausting this domestic remedy .

69 . Accordingly the Court concludes that the applicant has not exhausted domestic rem ed ies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Conventi on and declares the complaint under Article 8 inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Having regard to the foregoing conclusion, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the other non-exhausti on grounds raised by the Government.

II . ALLEGED VIOLATI ON OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL N o . 7 TO THE CONVENTION

70 . The applicant alleged that the expulsi on had been carried out in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, which reads as follows:

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

(a) to submit reasons against his expulsion,

(b) to have his case reviewed, and

(c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a pers on 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 expulsi on is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security.”

A. Admissibility

71 . The Government argued first that this provisi on was not applicable because since 20 January 2005 the applicant could not be considered “lawfully resident” in the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention . In this respect they noted that on 20 January 2005 he had lost the right to lawfully reside in the territory of Latvia, and that the subsequent withdrawal of the applicant ’ s permanent residence permit and his expulsi on were mere ly the legal consequence of the decisi on of the Min ister of Interior of 20 January 2005 to include the applicant in the blacklist.

72 . The applicant conte sted the argument and contended that in the context of the expulsi on proceedings by the decisi on of 16 June 2005 JÄ“kabpils District Court had extended the applicant ’ s detenti on by a two ‑ month term, therefore, according to the applicant, his stay could not be considered unlawful.

73 . As regards its field of application, t he Court notes that pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Explanat ory Report to Protocol No. 7, the word “lawfully” in Article 1 of that Protocol refers to the domestic law of the State concerned. It is therefore for the domestic law to determine the conditions which must be fulfilled for a person ’ s presence in the territory to be considered lawful .

74 . The Court observes that in accordance with t he provisions of the Immigrati on Law (see paragraph 41 above) the applicant exercised the right to appeal to the administrative court against the decisi on to withdraw his residence permit on the grounds of his inclusi on in the blacklist. Under the domestic law such a right was reserved to “ an alien legally residing in Latvia” (ibid.). The applicant ’ s appeal was allowed and at the time of his expulsi on in July 2005 the court proceedings were pending and they continued until 2008 ( see paragraph s 27 - 29 abo v e) . T he domestic authorities considered the applicant to be “lawfully resident” in relati on to the review of the wit hdrawal of his residence permit. Besides, in June 2005 a judge of the Jēkabpils District Court had authorised the applicant ’ s detenti on for two more months on the grounds that the applicant ’ s appeal against the expulsi on order was pending (see paragraph 33 abov e), which adds to the lawfulness of the applicant ’ s stay. In such circumstances it is not for the Court to provide an interpretati on contrary to that of the domestic authorities.

75 . The Court refers next to the Government ’ s argument that the withdrawal of the residence permit and the subsequent expulsi on were mere ly the legal consequences of the initial decisi on to include the applicant i n the blacklist , and that ever since he was no longer “lawfully resident” (see paragraph 71 above) . However, the Court points out that as long as under the operati on of the domestic law the national authorities treated the applicant as “lawfully resident” , the Court has no room to conclude that , in the overall process , he was not “ lawfully resident ” for the purposes of Ar ticle 1 of Protocol No. 7 .

76 . In the light of the above considerations, the Court finds that Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 was applicable in the present case .

77 . The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

78 . The Government contended that the applicant had fully exercised his p rocedural rights , because his complaint against the expulsi on order of 13 June 2005 had been duly examined by the Head of the Office of Ci tizenship and Migrati on Affairs, who had adopted a decisi on on 11 July 2005. They also argued that Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 did not imp ly that prior to the expulsi on the pers on concerned ought to be served with a decisi on reached as a result of the review proceedings.

79 . The applicant submitted that he had never been served with the decisi on of 11 July 2005 and therefore he had been unable to seek further remedies.

80 . The Court reiterates that in the event of deportation, in additi on to the protecti on afforded by Articles 3 and 8 of the Conventi on ta ken in conjuncti on with Article 13, aliens benefit from the specific gua rantees provided for in Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (see Lupsa v. Romania , no. 10337/04, § 51, ECHR 2006 ‑ VII). Paragraph 1 of this Article establishes as the basic guarantee that the pers on concerned may be expelled only “in pursuance of a decisi on reached in accordance with law”. No exceptions to this rule may be made. According to the Exp lanatory Report to Protocol No. 7, the term “law” here again refers to the domestic law of the State concerned. The decisi on must therefore be taken by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of substantive law and with the relevant procedural rules (see Bolat v. Russia , no. 14139/03, § 81, ECHR 2006 ‑ XI (extracts)).

81 . In assessing whether the applicant ’ s expulsi on was carried out pursuant to a decisi on reached “ in acc ordance with law” , t he Court notes that u nder secti on 70 of the Administrative Procedure Law an administrative act normally takes effect when it is notified to the addressee (see para graph 50 above) . Pursuant to secti on 80 of the same law t he lodging of an appeal to a hierarchically higher authority suspends the executi on of an administrative act, unless the conditions for urgent executi on of an administrative act ha ve been set out either in lex specialis or in the contested decisi on itself (see paragraph s 52 and 54 above ).

82 . Turning to the present case , the initial expulsi on order in relati on to the applicant was adopted on 13 June 2005 and came into effect on the same day when it was served on the applicant. The following day the applicant lodged a hierarchical appeal with the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs ( see paragraph 32 above) which in principle suspended the executi on of the initial expulsi on order until coming into effect of the decisi on reached as a result of hierarchical appeal . In the applicant ’ s case the domestic authorities did not advance any grounds justifying urgent executi on of his expulsi on pending his hierarchical appeal (see, in relati on to pending court proceedings, secti on 62 of the Immigrati on Law, paragraph 47 above). T he applicant ’ s appeal against the expulsi on order was decided on 11 July 2005 and, as stated i n the decision, it took effect up on notificati on to the applicant . It is undisputed that the above decisi on was not serv ed on the applicant before his expulsi on on 12 July 2005. Accordingly, t he applicant ’ s expulsi on was based on a decisi on which had not yet become final , thus failing to comply with the procedure set out in the domestic law .

83 . There has therefore been a violati on of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.

III . ALLEGED VIOLATI ON OF ARTICLE 5 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION

84 . The applicant further complained that he had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest on 7 June 2005. He relied on Article 5 § 2 of the Convention , which reads as follows:

“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.”

85 . The Government contended that on the day of the applicant ’ s detenti on he was served with the record s of detenti on setting out the relevant legal basis for the detention, as well as the reasoning thereof , which had been signed by the applicant . Th e Government also brought the Court ’ s attenti on to the fact that the applicant had passed the Latvian language test and therefo re he could not possibly allege that there was anything to prevent him from follow ing the detenti on procedure in Latvian.

86 . The applicant did not comment on this matter.

87 . The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 2 contains the elementary safeguard that any pers on arrested should know why he is being deprived of his liberty. This provisi on is an integral part of the scheme of protecti on afforded by Article 5: by virtue of paragraph 2 any pers on arrested must be told, in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest, so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness in accordance with Article 5 § 4. Whilst this informati on must be conveyed ‘ promptly ’ , it need not be related in its entirety by the arresting officer at the actual moment of arrest. Whether the content and promptness of the informati on conveyed are sufficient is to be assessed in each case according to its special features ( see, among other authorities, Murray v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1994, § 72, Series A no. 300 ‑ A ). It also reiterates that paragraph 2 of Article 5, like paragraph 4, is applicable both to persons deprived of their liberty by arrest and to those d eprived of it by detenti on (see Suso Musa v. Malta , no. 42337/12, § 113, 23 July 2013 , and the cases cited therein). Article 5 § 2 applies to Article 5 § 1 (f) cases, although less detailed reasons are required to be given than in Article 5 § 1 (c) cases (see Bordovskiy v. Russia , no. 49491/99, § 56, 8 February 2005 ).

88 . In the present case i t is not contested that the applicant was aware of the decisi on of 1 February 2005 by which his residence permit was withdrawn on the grounds of his inclusi on in the blacklist, and that accordingly he had to leave the territory of Latvia by 26 March 2005 (see paragraph 25 above) . E ven though the above decisi on was pending a court review and, presumably, the applicant could have expected that the expulsi on proceedings would be stayed pending the outcome of the court proceedings , under Article 5 § 2 of the Conventi on the Court is limited to examining whether the applicant was informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest. It transpires from th e evidence before the Court that t he detenti on record s , filed at the time of his detenti on and signed by the applicant, contained the informati on stated a bove . They indicated in particular that the applicant had been arrest ed under secti on 51, paragraph 1, part 2 of the Immigrati on Law (see paragraph 43 above) because he had been included in the blacklist and his residence permit had thereby been withdrawn . In addition, there is no evidence that the applicant had any language barriers which would prevent him from understand ing the informati on provided to him in Latvian.

89 . The Court concludes that the informati on provided to the applicant on the day of his detenti on satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention .

90 . In the light of the above, t here has been no violati on of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention .

IV . ALLEGED VIOLATI ON OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION

91 . The applicant further complained that he could not have the lawfulness of his arrest reviewed by a court. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

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

A. Admissibility

92 . The Government argued that it was for the applicant to submit a constitutional complaint if he considered his rights under Article 5 § 4 to the Conventi on had been violated by the fact that under se cti on 51, paragraph 1, part 2 of the Immigrati on Law (as in force at the material time), the State Border Guard Service had the right, without a court decision, to detain a pers on for a period of ten days .

93 . The applicant did not comment on this matter.

94 . The Court considers that the non-exhausti on argument raised by the Government is closely related to the substance of the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, and should be joined to the merits.

95 . The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.

B. Merits

96 . The Government argued that the guarantees afforded by Article 5 § 4 are less stringent in expulsi on cases, and therefore the review carried out by the p rosecutor ’ s office ensured an effective review mechanism. The Government also noted that after the expiry of the ten-day detenti on period the lawfulness of the applicant ’ s detenti on was subject to judicial review . Furthermore, they referred to the Guidelines on Forced Return by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 20 May 2005 , according to which a review in respect of the need to detain an individual should be subject to the supervisi on of a judicial authority in the event of prolonged detention. In the light of the above the Government contended that the ten-day detenti on period to which the applicant had been subjected without judicial review cannot be regarded as a prolonged period.

97 . The applicant did not comment on this matter.

98 . The Court reiterates that b y virtue of Article 5 § 4, arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing up on the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in the Conventi on sense , of their deprivati on of liberty. The noti on of “lawfulness” must have the same meaning under paragraph 4 of Article 5 as in paragraph 1, so that the detained pers on is entitled to a review of the “lawfulness” of his detenti on in the light not only of domestic law but also of the text of the Convention, the general principles embodied therein and the aim of the rest rictions permitted by Article 5 § 1 (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom , 15 November 1996, § 127 , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ V 127 ; see also Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07 , § 183, ECHR 2014 (extracts) . Accordingly, in cases of detenti on with a view to deportati on Article 5 § 4 does not demand that the domestic courts should have the power to review whether the underlying decisi on to expel could be justified under national or Conventi on law ( see Chahal , cited above, § 128), whereas a remedy must be made available during a person ’ s detenti on to allow the individual to obtain a speedy judicial decisi on concerning the lawfulness of detenti on and ordering its terminati on if it proves unlawfu l (see, mutatis mutandis , Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03 , § 106, 9 July 2009, see also Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey , no. 30471/08 , § 139, 22 September 2009 ).

99 . The Government argued that the detenti on period in expulsi on proceedings was too short to be susceptible to judicial review . In this relati on t he Court observes that on 7 June 2005 the applicant was detained for a period of ten days, thus the maximum period for which an official of the State Border Guard Control could detain an alien without a judicial decision , irrespective of the grounds on which the detenti on had been ordered . T he Court emphasises that w here detenti on is ordered by an administrative authority for a period of several days, Article 5 § 4 requires a n opportunity to challenge it before a judicial authority ( see , mutatis mutandi s , Shamsa v. Poland , nos. 45355/99 and 45357/99, § 59 , 27 November 2003 , and ÄŒonka v. Belgium , no. 51564/99, § 55, ECHR 2002 ‑ I . Accordingly the Court dismisses the Government ’ s argument.

100 . The Court will next examine in turn the remedies which, according to the Government, have provided or could have provided adequate redress to the applicant ’ s grievances .

101 . The Government invoked, first, that the prosecutor ’ s review provided the guarantees stipulated in Article 5 § 4 of the Conventi on (see paragraph 31 above) . The Court has already found that decisions adopted by the prosecutor could not be qualified as a decisi on taken by a “court” within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 ( see Čalovskis , cited above , § 222). Moreover, the Court notes that at the time the prosecutor carried out the ir review , the proceedings leading to the applicant ’ s inclusi on in the blacklist had not yet been t erminated. I t was only on 13 June 2005 that the Minister of Interior adopted a decisi on on the applicant ’ s request for his inclusi on in the black list to be re-examined , and that the above-mentioned decisi on was still amenable to judicial review (see paragraph 23 above) . T he Court notes that the prosecutor ’ s decisi on adopted on 14 June 2005 did not even menti on the ongoing proceedings against the applicant ’ s inclusi on in the blacklist (see paragraph 31 above) , and the possible implication s the proceedings could have on the “lawfulness” of the applicant ’ s detention. In the light of the above , the Court cannot conclude that the prosecutor ’ s review complied with the requirements of Article 5 § 4.

102 . On the Government ’ s next argument that the lawfulness of the applicant ’ s detenti on was also subjected to judicial review (see paragraph 33 above), the Court observes that on 16 June 2005 the Jē kabpils District Court reviewed the need for the applicant ’ s continued detention . I ts competence was limited to the questi on of whether the applicant ’ s detenti on after t he expiry of the ten-day period should be granted. The re-evaluati on of the detenti on order adopted by the official of the Office of Citizenship and Migrati on Affairs was not amenable to judicial review.

103 . Finally, the Court notes the Government ’ s submissions that the applicant could have lodged a constitutional complaint. It is true that in the light of the individual complaint mechanism before the Constitutional Court the applicant could claim that by failing to provide for a judicial review, secti on 47 , paragraph 1, part 2 of the Immigrati on Law was not compatible with the Constitution. However, even if the Constitutional Court had ruled in the applicant ’ s favour, there is nothing to show that in the course of constitutional proceedings the applicant ’ s deprivati on of liberty would be examined speedily and, where appropriate, that his release would be ordered (see, for an identical conclusion, ÄŒalovskis v. Latvia , no. 22205/13 , § 224, 24 July 2014, and Taraneks v. Latvia , no. 3082/06 , § 107, 2 December 2014 ). In the light of the above, the Court finds that the remedies referred to by the Government did not provide the applicant an opportunity to challenge effectively the lawfulness of his detention. Accordingly, it dismisses the Government ’ s objecti on in relati on to non ‑ exhausti on of domestic remedies.

104 . The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicant was not provided with a remedy whereby he could obtain a judicial review of the lawfulness of his detenti on within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

105 . Accordingly, there has been a violati on of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

V . APPLICATI ON OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

106 . Article 41 of the Conventi on provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violati on of the Conventi on or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparati on to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfacti on to the injured party.”

A. Damage

107 . The applicant claimed 142,960 United States dollars (USD) in respect of pecuniary damage and USD 800,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

108 . The Government disagreed with the claim.

109 . The Court does not discern any causal link between the violati on found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the othe r hand, it awards the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage.

B. Costs and expenses

110 . The applicant also claimed the sum of USD 3,600 for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts , and EUR 1,400 for those incurred before the Court.

111 . The Government disagreed with the claim.

112 . Noting that the applicant had been g ranted legal aid (see paragraph 2 above) , and relying on its case-law , the Court reiterates that an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the fact that no documents were submitted attesting to the fact that the costs and expenses had been actually incurred, the Court rejects the claim .

C. Default interest

113 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,

1 . Dismisses the Government ’ s request to strike the complaint under Article 8 of the Conventi on out of its list of cases ;

2 . Decides to join to the merits the Government ’ s objecti on as to the exhausti on of domestic remedies concerning the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Conventi on and rejects it ;

3 . Declares the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 and Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 of the Conventi on admissible and the remainder of the applicati on inadmissible ;

4 . Holds that there has been a violati on of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 ;

5 . Holds that there has been no violati on of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention;

6 . Holds that there has been a violati on of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;

7 . Holds , unanimously,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention , EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage ;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points ;

8 . Dismisses the remainder of the applicant ’ s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 March 2016 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Claudia Westerdiek Angelika Nu ß berger              Registrar              President