European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Dmitrijs ALOSINS v Latvia - 51868/08 [2009] ECHR 2006 (10 November 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/2006.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 2006
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
51868/08
by Dmitrijs AĻOŠINS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet
Fura, appointed to
sit in respect of Latvia,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 October 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dmitrijs Aļošins, is a Latvian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Daugavpils, 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 23 February 1996 the applicant was committed for trial at the Riga City Vidzeme District Court.
On 23 March 1998 the first trial was scheduled. However, the adjudication on the merits did not commence.
On 6 May 2008 the Riga City Vidzeme District Court found the applicant guilty of theft and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The judgment was final.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about length of criminal proceedings.
THE LAW
On 6 October 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 10,800 euros to Mr Dmitrijs Aļošins 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, Dmitrijs Aļošins, note that the Government of Latvia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 10,800 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 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 view 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