issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 337 (2014)
18.11.2014
Elderly Russian lady’s expulsion from Finland would not be in breach of the
Convention; no proof that she could not be cared for in Russia
Finland of a 72-year-old Russian national. She claimed that she would 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, a Finnish national.
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,
that there would be no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of
the European Convention on Human Rights if Ms Senchishak, the applicant, were to be expelled to
Russia.
The Court found that neither the general situation in Russia nor Ms Senchishak’s personal
circumstances would put her at real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if she were expelled. In
particular, she had failed to provide evidence to prove her allegation that she had no access to
medical treatment in Russia, there being both private and public care institutions there or the
possibility of hiring external help. The Court was also assured that her state of health at the time of
her removal would be taken into account and appropriate transportation – by ambulance for
example – would be organised.
The Court also decided to continue to indicate to the Finnish Government – under Rule 39 of its
Rules of Court – not to expel Ms Senchisak until such time as this judgment has become final or until
further order.
Principal facts
The applicant, Marina Senchishak, is a Russian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Espoo
(Finland).
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.
The immigration authorities refused Ms Senchishak a residence permit and ordered her removal to
Russia. Ms Senchishak’s appeal against her removal was 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 – Vyborg –
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
