European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Z. against Latvia - 73443/01 [2011] ECHR 2158 (2 December 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2158.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2158

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)227¹

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Freimanis and Līdums, Nazarenko, Vogins, and Z. against Latvia

(Application No. 73443/01, judgment of 9 February 2006, final on 9 May 2006,

Application No. 76843/01, judgment of 1 February 2007, final on 1 May 2007,

Application No. 3992/02, judgment of 1 February 2007, final on 1 May 2007,

Application No. 14755/03, judgment of 24 January 2008, final on 24 April 2008)

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 referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the final judgments 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 detention on remand of the applicants and the criminal proceedings brought against them before the domestic courts (Article 5, paragraphs 1, 3, and 4, and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order 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, within the time-limit set, 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 judgments, 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

- general measures preventing new, similar violations;

Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in the Appendix;

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close their examination.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2011)227

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

Freimanis and Līdums, Nazarenko, Vogins, and Z. against Latvia

Introductory case summary

Freimanis and Līdums: The case concerns criminal proceedings relating to the activities of the applicants, a former chairman of largest Latvian bank (Banka Baltija) and one of its directors, as well as the chairman of the board of this bank who was also an applicant in an earlier case (Lavents v. Latvia, application no. 58442/00). The Court found the following shortcomings:

- excessive length of the detention on remand between September 1998 and December 2001 (three years and more than three months) without proper grounds (violation of Article 5§3),

- lack of effective judicial supervision of the applicants’ 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),

- excessive length of the criminal proceedings (for the first applicant almost eight years, still pending on appeal at the time of the Court’s judgment; for the second applicant about seven years and ten months) (violation of Article 6§1), and

- violation of the presumption of innocence due to the statements made by the judge in charge of their case (violation of Article 6§2).

Nazarenko: The case concerns the irregularity of the applicant’s detention from 29 May to 23 August 2001, when it had not been authorised by a judicial decision (violation of Article 5§1).

Furthermore, it concerns excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand (two years and more than three months) (violation of Article 5§3).

Vogins: The case concerns excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand (one year and more than seven months) (violation of Article 5§3).

Z.: The case concerns the overall length of detention, the insufficiency of the reasons given and the inadequacy of the proceedings in connection with the decisions on continued detention (two years and more than four months) (violation of Article 5§3).

I. Individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application no.	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
Freimanis and Līdums (73443/01)	-	-	-	-
Nazarenko (76843/01)	-	3 000 EUR	-	3 000 EUR
Paid on 28/06/2007
Vogins (3992/02)	-	-	-	-
Z. (14755/03)	-	500 EUR	-	500 EUR
Paid on 30/05/2008

b) Individual measures

Freimanis and Līdums: The Committee of Ministers notes that it already appears from the judgment of the European Court that the incriminated proceedings were quashed by the Supreme Court in February 2003 and referred back for a fresh examination with a new bench of judges. The applicants were released on 27 January 2003 and 28 December 2001 respectively, and the Riga Regional Court delivered a new judgment in May 2005. The Court found however that the new proceedings, the fairness of which was not in doubt, had not fully rectified the violation of the presumption of innocence, thereby leading to a violation of Article 6§2 of the Convention. In the Court’s view, the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction (cf. the Court’s decision in respect of Article 41 in the case of Lavents against Latvia and the final resolution adopted in that case). Given the Court’s findings and the circumstances of the present case, no further individual measures are necessary.

Nazarenko and Vogins: The applicants were released on 15 March 2005, having served most of their sentence. The first applicant was awarded just satisfaction in respect of moral damage by the Court, whereas the second applicant did not submit any claim to this effect.

Z.: The applicant was convicted and is no longer in detention on remand. He was also awarded just satisfaction in respect of moral damage by the Court.

II. General measures

These cases present similarities to those of Lavents and Jurjevs, the examination of which was closed by Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)131, in which the following measures adopted by the Latvian authorities are mentioned:

a) Violation of Article 5§1:

The relevant article of the Latvian Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the material time, was repealed by a new law of 20 January 2005 which entered into force on 1 February 2005.

b) Violation of Article 5§3 and Article 5§4:

• Legislative measure: A new Law on Criminal Procedure entered into force on 1 October 2005, introducing the post of an investigative judge whose main function is to supervise the observance of human rights in criminal proceedings. The investigative 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 detention on remand.

• Training and awareness-raising measures: Issues relating to human rights in detention were included in the training programme for judges and prosecutors. Moreover, a research paper concerning the recent case-law on detention issues was distributed to all participants in the training programme.

c) Violation of Article 6§1:

There does not seem to be a systemic problem of excessive length of criminal proceedings in Latvia.

d) Violation of Article 6§2:

The violation found in the proceedings in question seems to be an isolated incident in respect of which the publication and dissemination of the judgment constitute a sufficient measure to prevent new similar violations. The judgment in the Lavents case was published and disseminated to judges and prosecutors. The Latvian translation of the admissibility decision and the judgment in the case of Freimanis and Līdums was also published on the website of the Government Agent (www.mkparstavis.am.gov.lv <http://www.mkparstavis.am.gov.lv/lv/@id=98>) and in the official periodical Latvijas Vēstnesis on 14 February 2006, No. 26(3394) (www.vestnesis.lv).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that in these circumstances, no special individual measures are called for, that the general measures reported prevent similar violations and that Latvia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.