Published on 8 January 2024

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 30007/23 O.C. against Latvia lodged on 22 July 2023 communicated on 11 December 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Russian national who in 2012 was granted refugee status in Finland where she currently resides. The applicant has an unregistered partner – a prominent pro-Russian activist living in Latvia.

In 2022, the Minister of the Interior, having examined information provided by the State Security Service, banned the applicant from entering the State for an indefinite period by including her in the list of persons who were prohibited from entering Latvia. The Minister found that the applicant posed a threat to national security because she supported Russian interests and separatist regions of Ukraine, as well as spread Russian propaganda. By a final judgment of 27 March 2023, the domestic court upheld that decision.

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 10 stating that the entry ban was in fact an act of retaliation by the State for her activities as a journalist and a human rights activist. She also relies on Article 6 § 1 to argue, in essence under Article 13, that she could not defend herself effectively in the domestic proceedings as the information, on which the claims made against her were based, was never disclosed.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is the applicant within the respondent State’s jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (see Cox v. Turkey , no. 2933/03, 20 May 2010; compare with M.N. and Others v. Belgium (dec.) [GC], no. 3599/18, § 96-126, 5 May 2020)?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular her right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (see, for comparison, Cox v. Turkey , no. 2933/03, 20 May 2010)?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? To what extent were the applicant’s journalistic activities relevant to her claim and the State’s margin of appreciation in this field? Can the applicant claim increased protection as a professional or non-professional journalist or human rights activist?

3. Did the applicant have an “arguable claim” that there had been a violation of her rights under Article 10, which in turn would bring into play Article 13?

If so, did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 10, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?