📋 Tender Overview
In today's judgment in the Mirzoyan case, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found that the Czech authorities had not violated the applicant's right to family life when he did not receive another residence permit for security reasons.
The complainant is a citizen of the Russian Federation. He did business in the Czech Republic for many years and lived together with his wife and children. In 2011, he applied for an extension of the validity of his residence permit. The Ministry of the Interior did not comply with the request because classified information showed that it was not desirable for the applicant to remain in the territory in order to protect security. At the same time, it stated that the rejection decision did not unduly interfere with the family life of the applicant and his children. The applicant's later applications for other residence permits were also rejected. The ministry also based its decisions on the content of classified information. The complainant's lawyer, but not the complainant himself, was able to familiarise himself with part of that classified information. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the decisions before the administrative courts.
At the outset, the Strasbourg court found that the authorities had interfered with the applicant's right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by refusing to issue a residence permit. It then assessed, first, whether the restriction of the complainant's rights to protect classified information had been compensated by sufficient safeguards and, second, whether the national authorities had taken adequate account of the complainant's family ties. The Ministry did not inform the complainant of the nature of the reasons or the specific circumstances why he posed a threat and why it did not allow him to get acquainted with the classified documents. However, those limitations have been sufficiently compensated, particularly in view of the scope and quality of judicial review in the case. With regard to the assessment of the applicant's family situation, the Strasbourg court agreed with the conclusions of the Czech courts that the impact of the rejection decisions on his children was indirect. The complainant did not substantiate that the move had a negative impact on the children, whether it played a central role in their care, why his presence in the Czech Republic was crucial for the children's well-being, why the family could not visit him abroad and maintain long-distance contact with him. In addition, some of the children were already adults. The national authorities took sufficient account of the complainant's family ties and balanced the interests involved.
Czech ECHR judge Kate?ina Šimá?ková expressed her approval of the judgment.
