By the decision of the Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate (Supreme Court) adopted on June 20, the legal proceedings in the case in which a Russian citizen requested the issuance of a temporary residence permit are completed. The applicant appealed the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court, as the court rejected his application. In the refusal to initiate cassation proceedings, the Senate pointed out the goal of the legislator to limit the stay of Russian citizens in Latvia, taking into account the war started by Russia against Ukraine and the threat that the presence of Russian citizens in Latvia could pose to national security.

According to the findings of the Regional Administrative Court, a temporary residence permit was once issued to a Russian citizen due to the purchase of immovable property in Latvia. After the applicant submitted an application for a new temporary residence permit to the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, the amendments to the Immigration Law came into force. The purpose of these amendments was to discontinue issuing new temporary residence permits to Russian citizens according to aforementioned justification after September 24, 2022, in the interests of national security. Thus, the Regional Administrative Court recognized that the issuance of a new temporary residence permit to the applicant was justified.

By refusing to initiate cassation proceedings, the Senate did not agree with the applicant that the legal provision was applied retroactively. In public law, legal provisions usually have immediate effect. This means that the new legal provision is also applicable in cases where administrative proceedings in the institution were commenced before the legal provision entered into force and were completed after it entered into force, unless the legislator has provided otherwise in the transitional provisions.

The Senate had no doubts of the compliance of the applicable legal provision with the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. The applicant referred to the necessity to provide for a gentle transition period for the application of the legal provision, stating that in this case persons would have the opportunity to find another legal basis to receive a residence permit in Latvia. However, it should be emphasized that the goal of the legislator was to limit the stay of Russian citizens in Latvia, taking into account the war started by the country of citizenship of these persons against Ukraine and the threat that the presence of Russian citizens in Latvia could pose to national security. Therefore, even if the legislator had provided for a transitional period, it would not aim to ensure that Russian citizens could find another alternative basis for obtaining the right to stay in Latvia.

In connection with the provisions that provide for non-issuance of visas to Russian citizens, further non-issuance of residence permits to a person who owns immovable property in Latvia significantly limits the rights of individuals to property. However, there is a legitimate basis for this limitation. Nor can it be determined that it is disproportionate, taking into account the potential threat to national security, if the citizens of the aggressor state continue to stay in Latvia.

Senate’s decision, case No SKA-697/2024 (A420117223)

 

Ilze Butkus, Communication adviser of the Supreme Court

Telephone: +371 67020302; e-mail: ilze.butkus@at.gov.lv