European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Lavents and Jurjevs v Latvia - 58442/00 [2009] ECHR 2245 (3 December 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/2245.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 2245

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)131¹

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Lavents and Jurjevs against Latvia

(Application Nos. 58442/00 and 70923/01, judgments of 28/11/2002 and 15/06/2006,

final on 28/02/2003 and 15/09/2006)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the pre-trial detention of the applicants and, in the Lavents case, also the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant before the domestic courts (violations of Article 5, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4, Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 8) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Latvia's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)131

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Lavents and Jurjevs against Latvia

Introductory case summary

The Lavents case concerns a number of violations concerning first, the pre-trial detention of the applicant, a former Chairman of the Board of the largest Latvian bank (Banka Baltija) which had gone bankrupt, and secondly the criminal proceedings brought against him before the Latvian courts. In this case the European Court found the following shortcomings:

- the unlawful composition of the Riga Regional Court (violation of Article 6§1);

- the lack of impartiality of this court due to public statements made by its President suggesting the applicant was guilty (violation of Article 6§1);

- a violation of the presumption of innocence due to these statements (violation of Article 6§2);

- the lack of effective judicial supervision of the applicant's detention on remand, given the unlawfulness of the composition of the court in question and the fact that it was not impartial (violation of Article 5§4);

- the excessive length of this detention on remand which lasted roughly four and half years (violation of Article 5§3);

- the excessive length of the criminal proceedings which lasted more than five and half years and which are still pending at appeal (violation of Article 6§1);

- the continuing monitoring of the correspondence between the applicant and his family and his lawyers on the basis of Article 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lacks the precision required by the Convention (violation of Article 8);

- the total refusal of family visits during part of his detention, a measure deemed unnecessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 8).

The Jurjevs case concerns the irregularity of the detention of the applicant on remand between 31 January 2001 and 8 May 2001, his detention order having been extended automatically on expiry on the basis of a practice having no basis in law (violation of Article 5§1). The case also concerns the absence of any effective judicial remedy enabling a court to determine the lawfulness of his detention (violation of Article 5§4).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
Lavents (58442/00)	-	-	15 000 EUR	15 000 EUR
Paid on 23/01/2004 default interest due included
Jurjevs (70923/01)	-	-	2 000 EUR	2 000 EUR
Paid on 02/11/2006

b) Individual measures

In the Lavents case, the applicant was released pending trial on 27 January 2003 and placed under police supervision. On 13 February 2003 the Senate of the Latvian Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Riga Court of first instance of 19 December 2001 and referred the case back to that court for re-examination with a new bench of judges. The Riga Regional Court delivered its judgment on 26 April 2005. On 16 May 2005, the two co-accused lodged an appeal but the applicant used the opportunity provided by national law and asked for the judgment to be translated into Russian. The translation was expected to be completed in October 2005. Following receipt of the translated judgment, the applicant will have the right to submit an appeal.

In the Jurjevs case, the applicant is no longer detained on remand: on 24 February 2005 he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Before the European Court the applicant stated that the finding of violations of his rights under the Convention constituted sufficient vindication in respect of the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained.

II. General measures

As regards the violation of Article 5§1, the article in the Latvian Code of the Criminal Procedure in force at the material time has been repealed by a new law of 20 January 2005 which entered into force on 1 February 2005.

As regards the violations of Articles 5§3 and 5§4, the new Law on Criminal Procedure entered into force on 1 October 2005. The new law introduces a post of investigative judge whose main function is to supervise the observance of human rights in criminal proceedings. The judge decides on the application and extension of certain means of restraint (detention, house arrest, placement in an institution) as well as on complaints related to other means of restraint (e.g. restraint order, bail, conditions of police supervision). The new law also imposes several time-limits for pre-trial detention.

As to the violation of Article 8 due to the monitoring of the applicant's correspondence, the new Law on Criminal Procedure and the new internal Rules of pre-trial detention centres provide stricter conditions in monitoring of correspondence during the pre-trial investigation. Correspondence may be supervised only when investigating grave or extremely grave crimes and only for a period not exceeding 30 days.

Concerning the violation of Article 8 due to the refusal of family visits during a part of the applicant's detention, on 29 April 2003, the Latvian government adopted the Regulation on the internal Rules of pre-trial detention centres, which provides inter alia that the administration of such an establishment should allow a detainee to contact his family or other persons. In addition, by a decision of 19 December 2001, the Latvian Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional any form of interference with the subjective rights of an individual solely on the basis of a ministerial order.

Training and awareness-raising measures: Issues relating to human rights in detention are included in the training programme for judges and prosecutors. Moreover, a research paper concerning the recent case-law concerning detention issues has been distributed to all participants in training. In May 2003, the Human Rights Institute of the University of Latvia organised a seminar on detention issues for judges, prosecutors, practicing lawyers, government and parliament representatives.

Publication and dissemination: The Latvian translation of the judgment was published in the official periodical Latvijas Vēstnesis on 12 February 2003, No. 23(2788) in hard copy as well on online (www.vestnesis.lv) and at the website of the Government Agent (www.mkparstavis.am.gov.lv). The translated judgment has also been sent out to judges and prosecutors and a short analysis included in the Bench Book for judges published in 2004 as well as in the compilation of the Court's decisions and judgments against Latvia published in 2004.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Latvia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.