4 PETROPAVLOVSKIS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 16. In its submissions of 5 January 2005 to the Administrative District Court, the Cabinet of Ministers emphasised that the Minister of Justice had drawn attention to the provisions of the Citizenship Law to the effect that in seeking Latvian citizenship a candidate must demonstrate allegiance to the Republic of Latvia, not only with a promise but also by his actions, and that the applicant’s actions were not compatible with the oath of allegiance to the Republic of Latvia. Having examined the information at its disposal, the Cabinet of Ministers decided that the applicant’s actions at the material time had not demonstrated loyalty to the Republic of Latvia. 17. In its additional submissions of 17 November 2005 to the Administrative District Court, the Cabinet of Ministers argued, inter alia, that its political decision had been based on the applicant’s actions; it was clear that he could not truthfully make a pledge of allegiance. It was evidenced by his own public statements, which indicated that he did not have a genuine link with the Republic of Latvia, that he did not wish to establish such a link and that he had applied for citizenship as part of a political campaign to harm the Republic of Latvia. The Cabinet quoted statements he had made during the interview on 10 December 2004 (see paragraph 15 above). Relying on the principle of “democracy capable of protecting itself”, it argued that national security, the protection of others and also the State language were the democratic values which the State purported to protect. The applicant’s public statements revealed that his actions were aimed at destabilising the situation in the country and that his wish to become a citizen had this purpose in mind. His statements and actions showed that he posed a real threat to national security: (i) the applicant was a leader of an organisation whose activities were directed towards disturbing public order and safety1; (ii) the organisation’s activities attested to the possibility of using violence2; (iii) the applicant’s statements indicated that he was ready to use violence3; (iv) the applicant’s actions demonstrated his unwillingness to allow the State authorities to exercise legitimate control over the lawfulness of the organisation’s activities4; and (v) the applicant’s genuine aim was not to acquire Latvian citizenship but to conduct an organised campaign directed at triggering a political scandal5. 18. On 16 December 2005 the Administrative District Court decided to terminate the proceedings without examining the case on the merits. The court concluded that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers regarding admission to Latvian citizenship (lēmums par personas uzņemšanu Latvijas pilsonībā) was “a political decision” (see paragraph 33 below) and as such not subject to examination by a court. The applicant appealed, stating, inter 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Reference was made to the media reports of 27 April, 28 July, 14 and 17 August 2004. Reference was made to the media reports of 21 February and 13 March 2004. Reference was made to the media reports of 21 February, 8 March and 1 April 2004 Reference was made to the media report of 21 February 2004. Reference was made to the media report of 10 December 2004.