Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)122
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Six cases against Latvia
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 April 2017 at the 1284th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
Application No.
Case
Judgment of
Final on
61005/00
KORNAKOVS
15/06/2006
15/09/2006
64846/01
MOISEJEVS
15/06/2006
23/10/2006
61638/00
IGORS DMITRIJEVS
30/11/2006
28/02/2007
73819/01
ESTRIKH
18/01/2007
18/04/2007
67275/01
ČISTIAKOV
08/02/2007
08/05/2007
71072/01
LEJA
14/06/2011
14/09/2011
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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see details in Appendix);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)122
Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the Kornakovs group of cases against Latvia
Introductory case summary
This group of cases mainly concerns violations of the right to respect for private and family life and correspondence of detainees (from 1997-2002) (violations of Article 8) arising from the following problems:
- censorship of correspondence with the European Court (Kornakovs, Igors Dmitrijevs);
- ban on correspondence from the applicants in detention to their families (Igors Dmitrijevs, Čistiakov);
- refusals to allow the applicants to receive family visits (Kornakovs, Moisejevs);
- ban on long term visits during pre-trial investigation and unlawful expulsion from Latvia (Estrikh).
It also concerns violations of the right to petition arising from refusals to dispatch letters to the Court (Igors Dmitrijevs, Moisejevs, Leja); interception of a letter addressed to the Court and imposition of a punishment for contacting the Court (Kornakovs) and assertion by the prison administration to the effect that the applicant required authorisation from a national judge before writing to the Court (Igors Dmitrijevs) (Article 34).
The Court also found other violations as follows:
- Article 3: Failure to provide the applicant with adequate food on the days of the trial (Moisejevs);
- Article 5 § 1: Automatic extension, without a legal basis, of the applicants’ detention on remand (Kornakovs, Moisejevs) and detention without judicial authorisation (Čistiakov);
- Article 5 § 3: Excessive length of detention on remand due to insufficient grounds to justify it and lack of “particular diligence” (Kornakovs, Moisejevs, Estrikh, Čistiakov);
- Article 6 § 1: Excessive length of criminal proceedings (Kornakovs, Moisejevs, Čistiakov, Estrikh);
- Article 9: Refusal to let the applicant participate in religious ceremonies during his pre-trial detention (Igors Dmitrijevs);
- Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8: Lack of domestic remedy in respect of refusal by the judge to allow family visits (Moisejevs).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction in cases in which it was awarded by the Court
Case
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Paid on
Kornakovs
-
10 000 EUR
-
10 000 EUR
02/11/2006
Estrikh
-
5 000 EUR
-
5 000 EUR
15/06/2007
Čistiakov
-
5 000 EUR
-
5 000 EUR
28/06/2007
Leja
-
1 000 EUR
64 EUR
1 064 EUR
20/10/2011
b) Individual measures
None of the applicants is still detained pending trial.
The criminal proceedings were completed in all cases where the Court found violations on account of their excessive length.
The proceedings concerning the applicant’s expulsion from Latvia in the case of Estrikh were terminated in 2002 as neither the applicant nor his lawyer pursued the complaint.
As concerns violations of Article 34 in the cases of Kornakovs, Moisejevs, Igors Dmitrijevs and Leja, the applicants were able to proceed with their applications to the Court.
II.General measures
Publication and dissemination
The judgments were published and widely disseminated. The European Convention has direct effect in the Latvian legal system.
On several occasions, the judgments in the Kornakovs, Moisejevs and Igors Dmitrijevs cases were included in the programme of the Latvian Judicial Training Centre, while the judgment in the Leja case was analysed at the Annual Human Rights Conference in 2012.
Article 3: The Cabinet of Ministers’ regulation No. 1022 of 19 December 2006 provides nutritional standards for detainees, including during short-term transfers (i.e. when a detainee is escorted to court hearings or for participation in investigation activities, or transferred to a prison hospital). During the transfers detainees are provided with drinks and food amounting approximately to 1170 kcal. Upon their return to the prison, detainees are provided with a hot meal.
Article 5 §§ 1-3, 6 § 1 and 8 (censorship of correspondence, ban on family visits): The general measures were taken in the context of the Lavents and Jurjevs cases (for more details see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)131). However additional measures have been adopted. They are presented below.
Article 5 § 1 (c): The violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) in the case of Čistiakov was of an isolated nature.
In addition, a new Criminal Procedure Law entered into force on 1 October 2005. It introduced the position of investigative judge whose main function is to supervise the observance of human rights during the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. The judge may decide on the application and extension of certain means of restraint (detention, house arrest, placement in an institution) as well as on complaints in that regard. The new law also imposes maximum procedural terms for detention at the pre-trial and adjudication stages and provides for regular judicial review of detention orders at two levels of jurisdiction. In addition, the person concerned may at any time request a review of his/her detention order.
Article 6 § 1: A series of additional measures have been adopted to ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time, such as the introduction of a written procedure before the appellate courts, the use of video conference systems during the adjudication of criminal cases and the obligation for the appellate courts to examine written evidence examined by the first instance court at the request of the defence, prosecution or victim. Also, the new Criminal Procedure Law of 2005 established a compensatory remedy for complaints of unreasonably lengthy criminal proceedings. In inadmissibility decisions (Kipens v. Latvia (No. 5436/05) of 05/03/2013 and Trups v. Latvia (No. 58497/08) of 20/11/2012) the Court found that the law provides for a compensatory review which is sufficiently clear and specific and rejected the complaints on the excessive length of criminal proceedings for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Article 8 (refusals to allow family visits, including long-term visits): The Law on Procedure for Detention on Remand of 2006 provided for the right of arrested persons to meet their relatives and other persons for one hour per month. Following a Constitutional Court ruling of 2009 in which it addressed the entitlement of detained persons to long-term visits as well as the length, frequency and the modalities of short-term visits, this law was amended to provide for at least an hour long visit at least once per month.
Article 8 (expulsion from Latvia): The violation in the case of Estrikh was an isolated incident.
Article 9: The Law on Procedure of Detention on Remand, adopted in 2006, established the Latvian Prison Administration Chaplain Service which is responsible for the organisation of religious activities at detention facilities and ensuring a detainee access to a priest belonging to his/her religion. Similar provisions with regard to convicted persons are contained in the Regulation No. 423 On Internal Rules of the Places of Deprivation of Liberty. This Regulation was amended in 2011 to allow pre-trial detainees to keep religious items in their cells.
Alleged interferences by the authorities with detainees’ freedom of religion can be challenged in the administrative courts. Thus, in a case in which an applicant detainee alleged a violation of his freedom of religion on account of the lack of vegetarian food in prison, the Administrative Regional Court, in December 2011, found a violation of his freedom of religion and awarded him compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Generally, the nutritional norms for detainees are provided by the Cabinet of Ministers’ regulation No.1022 of 19 December 2006 and also include vegetarian food, thus the recourse to administrative courts in such cases is used only in very specific situations.
Article 13 taken together with Article 8: Decisions by the prison administration related to visits to a detainee by his/her family or other persons can be appealed to the Head of Prison Administration and then before the administrative court. Restrictions on visits imposed by an investigating judge or a court can be appealed by way of ordinary procedure provided by the Criminal Procedure Law.
Article 34: The Code on Enforcement of Sentences of November 2004 provides that prisoners’ correspondence with international and national human rights institutions and organisations, the Prosecutor’s Office, courts and defence counsel may not be subject to censorship. Similar provisions are contained in the Law on Procedure for Keeping Apprehended Persons. The postal expenses for such correspondence shall be covered from the budget of the place of detention facility.
In addition, since 2004, allegations of censorship of the prisoners’ correspondence with the Court can be challenged before administrative courts. If an administrative court finds a violation, it can forbid the prison administration to continue a particular act and award monetary compensation, if requested.
III.Conclusions of the respondent State
The government considers that no further individual measure is required, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Latvia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy