THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31629/07
by Jurijs APARS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Ann Power, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 June 2007,
Having regard to the unilateral declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 29 September 2009 with a view to terminating the proceedings and the applicant's reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTSThe applicant, Mr Jurijs Apars, is a Latvian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Jēkabpils. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs Inga Reine.The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.On 14 March 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, committed as an organised crime.On 31 March 2003 the Kurzemes Regional Court commenced the trial. The trial took place from 31 March to 14 April 2003 and continued from 1 March to 17 March 2004; on 11 and 15 October 2004; and from 4 November to 28 December 2004.On 28 December 2004 the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment.On 31 May 2006 the Supreme Court, upon the applicant's appeal, upheld the judgment of the first instance court.On 10 January 2007 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law
COMPLAINTSThe applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him.The applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention of inadequate medical treatment in prison. The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of pre-trial detention.
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings
By a letter dated 29 September 2009 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government of the Republic of Latvia represented by their Agent Inga Reine (hereinafter – the Government) admit that the total length of criminal proceedings initiated against Jurijs Apars (hereinafter – the applicant) did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter – the Convention). Being aware of that, the Government undertake to adopt all necessary measures in order to avoid similar infringements in future.
Taking into account that the parties have failed to reach a friendly settlement in the present case, the Government declare that they offer to pay to the applicant the compensation in the amount of 900 euro, this amount being the global sum and covering any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred, free of any taxes that may be applicable, with a view to terminating the proceedings pending before the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the Court) in the case of Apars v. Latvia (application no. 31629/07).
The Government undertake to pay the above compensation within three months from the date of notification of the decision/judgment by the Court pursuant to Article 37 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on the amount, as established in the decision (judgment) by the Court. The above sum shall be transferred to the bank account indicated by the applicant.”
In a letter received on 1 December 2009 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low and invited the Court to examine his application on the merits. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. In certain circumstances, the Court may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out.), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008, Urtāns v. Latvia, no. 25623/04 , 7 April 2009. As to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present application on the basis of the unilateral declaration made by the Government, the Court points out that there is a considerable case-law with respect to the respondent State as concerns the scope and the nature of their obligations arising under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the guarantee of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in criminal proceedings (see, in particular, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, §§ 85-87, 99-104, 28 November 2002; Freimanis and Līdums v. Latvia, nos. 73443/01, 74860/01, §§ 106-109, 123-126, 9 February 2006; Kornakovs v. Latvia, no. 61005/00, §§ 113-116, 120-130, 15 June 2006; Moisejevs v. Latvia, no. 64846/01, §§ 136-143, 15 June 2006; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 136-143, 18 January 2007; and Čistiakov v. Latvia, no. 67275/01, §§ 74-91, 8 February 2007). The Court has repeatedly found a violation of this obligation and has awarded just satisfaction in accordance with the requirements of Article 41 of the Convention. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)). The Court further notes that this decision constitutes a final resolution of this application only in so far as the proceedings before the Court are concerned. It is without prejudice to the use by the applicant of other remedies before the domestic courts to claim further compensation in respect of the length of the impugned proceedings. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly it should be struck out of the list.
B. Remaining complaints
The applicant also alleged violation of Article 3 and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of any of the above Articles of the Convention. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of proceedings, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stanley NaismithJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy