K.M. and Others v Russia - 46086/07 [2010] ECHR 767 (29 April 2010)

K.M. and Others v Russia - 46086/07 [2010] ECHR 767 (29 April 2010)

The application was inadmissible because the first and second applicants' representatives lacked valid authority, and the third applicant's complaint under Article 8 was manifestly ill-founded as there were no insurmountable obstacles to family life outside Russia, and no violation of the Convention was disclosed.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 767
Parties
Applicants: K. M. and Others; Respondent: Russia
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
29 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Deportation, Asylum, Right to Family Life, Effective Remedy, Detention of Aliens
Human Rights Law Immigration Law Deportation Asylum Right to Family Life Effective Remedy Detention of Aliens

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. M. and Others

Applicants

Russia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deportation of the applicants to China violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
  2. 2 Whether the deportation and detention violated Article 5 § 1(f) (right to liberty and security)
  3. 3 Whether the deportation constituted unjustified interference with family life under Article 8

Ratio Decidendi

The application was inadmissible because the first and second applicants' representatives lacked valid authority, and the third applicant's complaint under Article 8 was manifestly ill-founded as there were no insurmountable obstacles to family life outside Russia, and no violation of the Convention was disclosed.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible

Orders

  • Application rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention