Information Note on the Court’s case-law 11

October 1999

Pančenko v. Latvia (dec.) - 40772/98

Decision 28.10.1999 [Section II]

Article 3

Inhuman treatment

Precarious economic and social situation resulting from refusal of residence permit: inadmissible

In 1985, the applicant, who was a citizen of the former USSR, moved to Latvia, where she has been living since. In 1992, in accordance with the Status of the Former USSR Citizens Act, she was entered in the Register of Latvian Residents on the basis of her status of “ex-USSR citizen”. In 1994, she chose to adopt Russian citizenship. As a result, the authorities annulled her entry in the register and issued her with a temporary residence permit valid until February 1996. Her subsequent attempts to be registered as a permanent resident, including an appeal to the Supreme Court, remained fruitless. In the meantime, she had renounced her Russian citizenship. In 1997 she was served with a deportation order. She unsuccessfully started another court action to be registered as a permanent resident. In 1999 she acquired Ukrainian citizenship and was granted a permanent residence permit on the basis of her foreign citizen status. The deportation order against her was finally quashed. The applicant complained about the economic and social precariousness of her situation from 1995 to 1999, which allegedly resulted from the refusal by the authorities to grant her the status of permanent resident. She referred in particular to local tax debts, unemployment and lack of free medical assistance and financial support from the State.

Inadmissible under Article 3: In so far as the applicant complained about the social and economic pre cariousness of her situation from 1995 to 1999 when she was refused registration as a permanent resident, the Convention does not guarantee socio-economic rights as such, and in particular does not include the right to a charge-free dwelling, the right to work, the right to free medical assistance or the right to financial assistance from the State to ensure a certain standard of living. To the extent that the applicant’s contentions related to Article 3, her living conditions did not attain the minimum lev el of severity amounting to ill-treatment within the meaning of that Article: 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