Senchishak v Finland [2014]

1. Facts:

• The applicant, a 72-year-old Russian woman, went to Finland on a tourist visa to stay with her daughter, who was her primary caregiver.

• After her tourist visa expired, she was not granted a residence permit and was asked to leave Finland, but she refused, arguing that returning to Russia would breach her right to respect for her family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

• The applicant claimed that she was dependent on her daughter’s care, making it essential for her to remain in Finland.

2. Outcome:

• The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected the applicant’s claim, ruling that her situation did not constitute a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR.

• The Court held that the right to respect for family life under Article 8 is usually reserved for the “core family,” which typically includes relationships like those between parents and minor children or spouses.

• The Court found that the applicant did not have an automatic right to establish family life in Finland, particularly because there were no “additional factors of dependence” beyond the normal emotional ties that typically exist between adult family members.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Family Life Under Article 8: The ruling emphasised the ECtHR’s interpretation of family life under Article 8 as primarily applying to the core family. In cases involving extended family members, such as an adult child and an elderly parent, the Court requires evidence of “additional factors of dependence” beyond normal emotional ties to establish a right to family life.

• Dependency Considerations: The Court determined that while the applicant was emotionally close to her daughter, this did not automatically entitle her to remain in Finland. The Court noted that the applicant could access care services in Russia, either through public or private institutions, or by hiring external help, indicating that her dependency on her daughter was not absolute or irreplaceable.

• Balancing Private and Public Interests: The case highlights the ECtHR’s approach to balancing individual rights against public interests, such as immigration control. The decision reflects the Court’s reluctance to extend Article 8 protections in a way that could undermine national immigration policies, particularly when alternative care options are available in the applicant’s home country.

• Precedent on Family Life Claims: Senchishak v Finland reinforces the principle that Article 8 does not guarantee an unrestricted right to choose the most convenient living arrangements for family members. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases, where the Court will scrutinise claims of dependency and the availability of alternative care options before recognising a breach of the right to family life.