THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18507/06
by Iveta ŠAFIRA
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 April 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Iveta Šafira, is a Latvian national who was born in 1965 and is currently serving a sentence in Iļģuciems prison in Rīga, Latvia. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 February 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.
On 10 February 1999 she was arrested. On 19 February 1999 she was released.
On 30 June 1999 an indictment was drawn up for one episode of aggravated fraud which took place in September 1998. Subsequently, other episodes of fraud were discovered and the applicant was detained from 19 to 22 March 2001, from 30 January to 18 March 2004, from 30 June to 2 July 2004, and from 6 April 2005 until the trial.
On 22 June 2005 the Criminal Chamber of Rīga Regional Court convicted her on four counts of fraud and sentenced her to 8 years of imprisonment.
On 22 November 2005 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court re-qualified the conviction by merging two episodes under one count, reduced the overall sentence to 6 years, but did not acquit her on either count.
On 28 February 2006 the Senate of the Supreme Court decided to refuse to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
COMPLAINT
1. The applicant initially complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against her had been unreasonably long.
2. The applicant further complained about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against her, that she had not been granted amnesty, that certain tapes were not accepted as evidence, hat she was refused to examine two witnesses during the appellate proceedings. She relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (d) in this regard.
3. The applicant also complained, invoking Articles 2 and 4 of Protocol No. 7 that she had been denied a right of appeal and that she had been punished twice.
THE LAW
On 24 June 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Inga Reine, the Agent for the Government, declare that the Government of Latvia offer to pay ex gratia 1,800 euros to Ms Iveta Šafira with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Latvian lats [LVL] at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Iveta Šafira, note that the Government of Latvia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 1,800 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Latvian lats [LVL] at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Latvia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Santiago Quesada	Josep Casadevall
	Registrar	President