The case concerned a Chechen family who travelled through Belarus to Latvia and, upon arrival in Latvia, was issued with decisions refusing their entry on the grounds that they did not have valid visas or residence permits and were returned to Belarus. The applicants were returned from Belarus to Russia, where the first applicant was detained and exposed to ill-treatment until the family was eventually admitted to Poland (see M.K. and Others v Poland and M.A. & Others (Russia) v Lithuania). The applicants complained that they were returned to Belarus without their asylum claims being reviewed by the Latvian authorities, in breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention and Article 4 Protocol No 4 of the Convention.
 
The court noted that according to the burden of proof principle, it was the applicants' responsibility to provide evidence that they had applied for asylum in Latvia. The court therefore ruled that, considering the lack of evidence proving the asylum application in Latvia, as well as the applicants' previous attempts to be admitted to the asylum procedure in Poland and Lithuania and their ability to provide evidence in these cases, the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence of having applied to the Latvian authorities for asylum. It therefore rejected the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded.

Regarding the complaints under Article 4 Protocol No 4, the Court considered that as the applicants remained at the border crossing point for several hours there was sufficient opportunity to submit their arguments individually to the national authorities and there were no communication barriers as all discussions between the applicants and guards were held in Russian. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicants did not raise arguments relating to their fear of ill-treatment upon return. Therefore, the simultaneous removal of all the applicants cannot be considered as a “collective” expulsion within the meaning of Article 4 Protocol 4. The application as a whole was therefore found inadmissible.