Committee of Ministers

SECRETARIAT GENERAL
SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES
Contact: Anna Austin
Tel: 03 88 41 22 29
Date:
18/12/2014
DH-DD(2014)1530
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said
Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.
Meeting:
1222 meeting (March 2015) (DH)
Item reference:
Action report (29/09/2014)
Communication from Latvia concerning the cases of Blumberga and Marina against Latvia (Applications
No. 70930/01 and 46040/07)
***********
Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de
ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.
Réunion :
1222 réunion (mars 2015) (DH)
Référence du point :
Bilan d’action
Communication de la Lettonie concernant les affaires Blumberga et Marina contre Lettonie (Requêtes
n° 70930/01 et 46040/07) (anglais uniquement)
DH-DD(2014)1530 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative,
without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e
Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou
politique du Comité des Ministres.
ACTION REPORT
of the Government of the Republic of Latvia on the execution of
the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases
MARINA
v.
Latvia
Application no. 46040/07
Judgment of 26 October 2010
Final on 26 January 2011
BLUMBERGA
v.
Latvia
Application no. 70930/01
Judgment of 14 October 2008
Final on 14 January 2009
DH-DD(2014)1530 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative,
without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e
Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou
politique du Comité des Ministres.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In the context of the working methods for the supervision of the execution of the Court’s
judgments and decisions adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 December 2010 and
taking into account the comments of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights, the Government hereby presents its Action Report setting
out the execution measures taken in the cases Marina v. Latvia and Blumberga v. Latvia.
II. CASE DESCRIPTION
II.1. Marina v. Latvia
2. On 27 September 2007 Nadežda Marina (“the applicant”) submitted an application to the
European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) under Article 34 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”).
3. The applicant, an old age pensioner, considered a “low-income person” under the national
law, in 2005 pursed a civil claim before the Riga Regional Court and the Chamber of Civil
Cases of the Supreme Court for damages caused by the destruction of an outhouse,
greenhouse and garden, which she had used to gain extra income by growing and selling
fruit and vegetables.
4. The applicant complained that the excessive amount of a court fee due for lodging the civil
claim for compensation of damages and the controversial interpretation of the procedural
provisions applied by the domestic courts (regarding possible partial reduction of the court
fee or postponement of the payment) had deprived her of the right of access to a court, as
guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
5. The Court unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court)
of the Convention on the account that the approach used by the domestic courts had indeed
prevented the applicant from exercising her right of access to a court.
II.2. Blumberga v. Latvia
6. On 19 April 2001 Ināra Blumberga (“the applicant”) submitted an application to the Court
under Article 34 of Convention.
7. The applicant is a Latvian national who was arrested and detained on remand in between
April and June 1995. During the detention, the applicant’s property was partly stolen and
destroyed.
8. In this connection, two sets of criminal proceedings were initiated in 1995, in which the
applicant was acknowledged as a civil claimant. In addition, in 2001 the applicant filed a
civil claim with the Riga Regional Court against the State Police authorities, requesting
compensation of the damage caused as a result of the State Police failure to fulfil its duty in
protecting the applicant’s property during her detention pursuant to Article 80 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant requested to be exempted from the court fee due
because of her poor financial situation. The domestic courts refused to accept the applicant’s
civil claim on the account that it had not been properly submitted both with regard to the
evidence as to her financial situation and factual circumstances on which her claim was
based.
2
DH-DD(2014)1530 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative,
without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e
Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou
politique du Comité des Ministres.
9. Accordingly, invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the
Convention, the applicant alleged that she had lost some property as a result of the failure of
the police to carry out their duty and she could not obtain redress for the damage sustained
because of the lengthy and ineffective pre-trial investigation of the criminal cases. Relying
to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant argued that she had been deprived of the
right of access to a court.
10. The Court held that the refusal of the domestic courts to examine the applicant’s claim on its
merits was manifestly unwarranted and therefore unanimously found a violation of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention.
III. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES
11. Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Law provisions newly discovered facts and circumstances
serve as a basis for reopening of civil proceedings at domestic level (Article 478 of the
Law). Article 478 of the Civil Procedure Law provides that it is possible to reopen civil
proceedings on the basis of newly discovered facts and circumstances upon the application
from the party to the civil proceedings. The application shall be submitted to the respective
regional court if the contested judgment or decision has been adopted by the first instance
court, to the Chamber of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court if the contested ruling has been
adopted by the Regional Court, but if the contested judgment or decision has been adopted
by the Chamber of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court – to the Department of Civil Cases of
the Senate of the Supreme Court. The application must be lodged within three months
period following the moment when the newly discovered facts and circumstances have been
established.
12. Newly discovered facts and circumstances are listed in Article 479 of the Civil Procedure
Law. Following the 22 May 2008 amendments to Article 479 of the Civil Procedure Law
that entered into force on 25 June 2008 a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights
shall be considered to constitute “newly discovered facts and circumstances” serving as a
basis for reopening of civil proceedings (Article 479, paragraph 6).
13. Although the applicants both in the case Marina v. Latvia and Blumberga v. Latvia had the
opportunity to request a reopening of the domestic proceedings on the basis of the Court’s
judgments, they did not avail themselves of this opportunity. In the absence of such a
request, no individual measures appear necessary.
IV. GENERAL MEASURES
14. First of all, it should be pointed out that the European Convention of Human Rights has
direct effect in the Latvian legal system.
IV.1. Marina v. Latvia
15. The violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case is of an isolated nature
and resulted from excessive formalism of national courts. The problems identified by the
Court in the case Marina v. Latvia have been discussed by the representatives from the
Ministry of Justice, which is the authority responsible, inter alia, for administration of the
court system in Latvia, and the Supreme Court – the highest instance of the general
jurisdiction. It has been a common understanding by both competent authorities that the
wording of Article 43, paragraph 4, of the Civil Procedure Law is sufficiently clear and
provides for two distinct situations when a court may apply exceptions from the general
3
DH-DD(2014)1530 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative,
without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e
Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou
politique du Comité des Ministres.
obligation to pay court fee: (1) to reduce the amount of the court fee or exempt from the
court fee at the time of lodging a claim and (2) to postpone or divide into instalments the
court fees which had been allocated to State revenues. Thus, the shortcomings identified in
the present case constitute a unique incident in the case-law of domestic courts. Therefore,
in order to avoid similar violations in the future publication and dissemination of the Court’s
judgment, as well as training of national judges would be the most appropriate general
measure.
16. In this context it should be noted that on the day of notification, a press release on the
Court’s judgment was issued, summarising the facts of the case and the Court’s conclusions,
as well as explaining reasoning thereof. 1 Further, the Court’s judgment was translated into
Latvian, published in the official newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis” (27 September 2011;
no.152 (4550))2, on the website of the Supreme Court3 and on the official courts’ website
www.tiesas.lv. Finally, it has been widely disseminated amongst the national courts (the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia and regional courts).
17. In order to improve the interpretation and implementation of Article 43 of the Civil
Procedure Law (“Exceptions from General Provisions Regarding Court Fees”) in
compliance with the Convention’s standards, analysis of the judgement has been included in
the Latvian Judicial Training Centre’s (the LJTC) programme. The LJTC is a foundation
that provides legal education and training, as well as improves the level of professional
knowledge and ethics for all judges, court employees, bailiffs and other legal professionals
in Latvia.4
IV.2. Blumberga v. Latvia
18. The violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention found in the present case constitutes an
isolated incident, which has resulted from excessive formalism of national courts. Therefore,
in order to avoid similar violations in the future publication and dissemination of the Court’s
judgment is the most appropriate general measure.
19. It should be noted that upon the notification, a press release concerning the Court’s
judgment was published, containing the summary of the Court’s reasoning and conclusions. 5
20. Further, the Court’s judgment was translated into Latvian, published in the official
newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis” (12 February 2009; No. 24 (4010))6, on the website of the
Supreme Court7 and on the official courts’ website www.tiesas.lv. Also, the judgment has
been disseminated amongst the competent State authorities (the Ministry of Justice of the
Republic of Latvia, the Prison Authority, the Prosecutor General Office and relevant
regional Prosecutor Offices, the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Latvia, the State
Police).
21. Further, the existing case-law of domestic courts demonstrates that the national courts do
accept for examination on their merits civil claims for compensation of damages brought by
individuals against the State officials (in particular, pursuant to Article 1635 of the Civil
1
http://www.mfa.gov.lv/lv/Jaunumi/zinas/2010/oktobris/26-10-ect/
https://www.vestnesis.lv/?menu=doc&id=236670
3
http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/ect-nolemumi/ect-nolemumu-mekletajs/?author=MARINA&q=
4
http://www.ltmc.lv/index.php?lng=2
5
http://www.mfa.gov.lv/lv/Jaunumi/zinas/2008/oktobris/14-2/
6
https://www.vestnesis.lv/?menu=doc&id=187689
7
http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/ect-nolemumi/ect-nolemumu-mekletajs/?author=BLUMBERGA&q=
2
4
DH-DD(2014)1530 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative,
without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e
Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou
politique du Comité des Ministres.
8
9
Law and Article 92 of the Constitution ). The Latvian courts have developed extensive and
consistent case-law concerning compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
sustained as a result of unlawful actions of various State officials and/or institutions.
22. Thus, for instance, by the judgment of the Chamber of the Civil Cases of the Supreme Court
of 4 January 2001 in the case No. PAC-61, the Supreme Court awarded to the applicants in
that case compensation for damages sustained as a result of unlawful actions of the official
of the Security Police. By its judgment of 9 February 2010, the Riga Regional Court
awarded to the applicant compensation for damages sustained as a result of unlawful actions
of the official of the State Police. Furthermore, by its judgment of 5 December 2006, the
Chamber of the Civil Cases of the Supreme Court awarded to the applicant compensation
for damages sustained as a result of unlawful actions of the officials of the Grīva Prison
Administration. The latter judgment is particularly important, since the Latvian court, inter
alia, observed that the issue of existence of corpus delicti had no legal effect on the
adjudication of the civil claims arising from the allegedly unlawful actions, and this finding
was later confirmed by the Senate of the Supreme Court on 25 April 2007. Finally, by the
judgment of 9 February 2007, in the case No.C-2211/12, the Riga Regional Court examined
the civil claim brought against the State by I.J. concerning unlawful disclosure of
information obtained in the result of special investigative measures. Having acknowledged
that the said issue fell within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 96 of the
Constitution, the Riga Regional Court referred to the judgment of the Constitutional Court
of 5 December 2001 in case No.2001-07-0103, whereby Article 92 of the Constitution was
declared to be directly applicable in domestic courts. The Riga Regional Court further held
that Article 92 of the Constitution should be applied in conjunction with Article 1635 of the
Civil Law, concluding that unlawful interference with the right to respect for private and
family life creates a basis for civil claim for compensation of non-pecuniary damage.
Having examined the relevant provisions of the Law on Special Investigative Techniques
and their application in respect of I.J., the Riga Regional Court found that the State had
failed its obligation to prevent the infringement of I.J.’s right to respect for private and
family life, when implementing the special investigative techniques against her, and
awarded her compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
23. Even if the Court did not find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the Convention,
the Government would also like to report on the developments of legislation regarding
supervision of property of individuals, with respect to whom a security measure depriving of
liberty has been applied.
24. During the time period directly pertaining to the events in the Blumberga case (1995), the
legislation providing for the supervision of a property of detained individuals was Article 80
of the Criminal Procedure Code.10
25. Article 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code was replaced by Article 248, paragraph 2, of the
Criminal Procedure Law that entered into force on 1 October 2005. The aforesaid provision
8
The particular provision provides that any infringement of rights, that is, any unlawful activity, which has caused
damage, including non-pecuniary damage, entitles the victim to claim compensation from the perpetrator to the extent
the latter may be held responsible for the above activity.
9
Article 92 states that every person has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair trial, and in
case of unlawful interference with his or her rights, everyone is entitled to adequate compensation.
10
Article 80 provided: “If a detained person has a property or an apartment which is left unattended, authority
performing inquiry, public prosecutor or court shall ensure its protection.”
5
DH-DD(2014)1530 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie.
Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative,
without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e
Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou
politique du Comité des Ministres.
sets out the guidelines for effective safeguarding of property of individuals whose liberty
has been restricted.11
26. The procedure is more explicitly set out in the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of
Latvia Regulation No.1132 of 6 October 2009 “Procedure on Protecting of Individual’s
Property With Respect to Whom a Security Measure Depriving of Liberty Has Been
Applied”. Accordingly, an individual in respect of whom a security measure related to
deprivation of liberty has been applied, is entitled to request the authority responsible for the
criminal proceedings to assign the respective municipality (according to the location of the
property) with the duty to protect the property. The assignment is funded from the State
budget.
V. JUST SATISFACTION
V.1. Marina v. Latvia
Pecuniary damage
--
Non-pecuniary damage
EUR 1,000
Costs and expenses
--
Total
1,000 EUR
Paid on 09/03/2011
Costs and expenses
--
Total
8,000 EUR
Paid on 06/03/2009
V.2. Blumberga v. Latvia
Pecuniary damage
--
Non-pecuniary damage
EUR 8,000
VI. CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT STATE
27. The Government believes that the execution measures described above are appropriate to
fulfil the requirements arising from the Court’s judgments and prevent similar violations
from occurring in the future. Accordingly, it is sufficient to conclude that Latvia has
complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention concerning violations
of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the examination of the cases Marina v. Latvia and
Blumberga v. Latvia should be closed.
Kristīne Līce
Agent of the Government of the Republic of Latvia
Riga, 29 September 2014
11
Article 248, paragraph 2, provides: “If an individual’s, with respect to whom a security measure related to
deprivation of liberty has been applied, property is left without supervision, the authority responsible for criminal
proceedings shall provide the individual with an opportunity to contact relatives or other person by means of controlled
communication in order to ensure the supervision of the property. If it is not possible, pursuant to the individual’s
request, the authority responsible for criminal proceedings shall decide to assign the respective municipality (according
to the location of the property) with temporarily property’s protection not exceeding three months, thus providing the
individual with an opportunity to agree about subsequent property’s supervision. The procedure for the protection and
transfer of property shall be established by the Cabinet of Ministers. The protection of property shall be financed from
the State budgetary means specially designed for this purpose.”
6