EIT antaa tuomion Suomea koskevassa ns. isoäitivalituksessa

17.11.2014 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) antaa huomenna tuomion oleskelulupaa koskevassa valituksessa, jossa on kyse ikääntyneestä henkilöstä, joka valituksessaan väittää, että hänen käännyttämisensä Venäjälle loukkaisi Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 3 ja 8 artiklaa.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The applicant, Marina Senchishak, is a Russian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Espoo (Finland). The case concerns her threatened removal from Finland to Russia.

Ms Senchishak arrived in Finland in December 2008 on a tourist visa to stay with her daughter. Her daughter has been living in Finland since 1988 and has become a Finnish citizen. Soon after her arrival Ms Senchishak applied for a residence permit on the basis of family ties. She alleged before both the immigration authorities and administrative courts that, paralysed on her right side since 2006 after having suffered a stroke, it was impossible for her to obtain adequate medical care in Russia and that she was therefore dependent on her daughter in Finland, her husband having died in 2007 and her other daughter having been missing – presumed dead – since 2003. Her appeal against her removal was ultimately rejected by the Helsinki Administrative Court in September 2011, which found in particular that she could receive proper medical care in Russia and was not therefore completely dependent on her daughter in Finland. In any case, her daughter could help her financially and could easily visit her in Russia, their hometown being only a short distance from the Finnish border. The Supreme Administrative Court ultimately refused leave to appeal in June 2012; no stay on removal was ordered. Ms Senchishak’s removal was suspended on the basis of an interim measure granted by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2012 under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, which indicated to the Finnish Government that she should not be removed until further notice.

Ms Senchishak alleges that her removal would be in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) because she did not have access to medical care in Russia, it being impossible for her to obtain a place in a nursing home there, and because she would be separated from her daughter, her closest living relative.