| Guiding principle: |
Adjudicating the complaint the Constitutional Review Chamber came to the conclusion that as the complainant had previously obtained the residence permit five times, has a family, job and property in Estonia, his legitimate expectation that his residence permit will be extended in the future unless new circumstances are ascertained concerning him, was justified. The deprivation of the possibility to make exception violates the constitutional principle of legitimate expectation.The Chamber agrees with the opinion of the Riigikogu (Parliament) that the amendments to the Aliens Act excluding a possibility to issue permanent residence permit for those who were associate workers of the former National Security Committee of Estonian SSR, are not in conflict with the legitimate expectation to obtain a residence permit. An alien who obtains a temporary residence permit is aware that his or her right to stay in the country is limited by the term specified in the residence permit. Estonian legal order has never given the aliens who were associate workers of the former National Security Committee of Estonian SSR any reason for legitimate expectation to have a right to stay in Estonia. Nevertheless, the complainant has the right to legitimate expectation that the executive shall consider the issue of a residence permit to him.Proceeding from section 2 of Article 152 of the Constitution and from clause 19 (1) 2) of the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act the has decided: To declare clause 12 (4) 10) and subsection 12 (5) of the Aliens Act unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that they do not give the possibility to make exceptions upon issuing or extending a residence permit to an alien who has been or in regard of whom there is good reason to believe that he or she has been employed in an intelligence or security service of a foreign state. |