Resolution ResDH(2003)124
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 9 April 2002 (final on 9 July 2002)
in the case of Podkolzina against Latvia
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 July 2003
at the 847th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Podkolzina case delivered on 9 April 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 46726/99) against Latvia, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 February 1999 under Article 34 of the Convention by Ms Ingrīda Podkolzina, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint relating to a violation of the right of the applicant, a Latvian national belonging to the Russian-speaking minority, to present her candidature at the elections to the Parliament in October 1998, in that she was struck off the electoral list on the ground of insufficient knowledge of the Latvian language;
Whereas in its judgment of 9 April 2002 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention;
- held that there was no need to rule separately on the complaint lodged under Article 14 of the Convention;
- held that there was no need to rule separately on the complaint lodged under Article 13 of the Convention;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 7 500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 1 500 euros in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted in Latvian lats at the rate applicable on the date of issuing the present judgment plus any amount due in respect of Value Added Tax that and that simple interest at an annual rate of 6% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 9 April 2002, having regard to Latvia’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken following the judgment to remedy the applicant’s situation and to prevent new violations of the same kind as that found by the Court (this information appears in the appendix to this resolution);
Having satisfied itself that on 12 July 2002, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 9 April 2002,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Latvia, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2003)124
Information provided by the Government of Latvia
during the examination of the Podkolzina case
by the Committee of Ministers
Further to the European Court's judgment in the case of Podkolzina against Latvia, the law on election to Parliament was amended on 9 May 2002 and the provisions requiring higher proficiency in Latvian language for all persons running for parliamentary election were deleted. As a result of this amendment, the applicant and all other persons in her position could freely run for the new parliamentary elections of 5 October 2002 without providing any proof of their linguistic proficiency. This reform thus effectively remedies both the applicant's situation and prevents new similar violations.
The judgment of the European Court was furthermore published in the Official Gazette of 21 May 2002 (n° 75(2650)).
It should moreover be recalled that the violation in the present case also related to the attitude of the Riga Regional Court, which failed to review adequately the lawfulness of the administrative decisions preventing the applicant from running for election and refused to remedy her situation (see paragraph 37 of the European Court's judgment). As regards this issue, the Government expects all Latvian courts to align their practice on the requirements of the European Convention of Human Rights by granting direct effect to the European Court's judgments. Indeed, subsequent to the impugned domestic judgment delivered on 31 August 1998, Latvian courts, including the Supreme Court and the Riga Regional Court itself, applied various provisions the European Convention of Human Rights, as interpreted by the European Court in its judgments (see, inter alia, the Supreme Court's judgments of 13 February 2002 and 13 February 2003; the Riga Regional Court's judgment of 27 March 2003). The Government accordingly trusts that the direct effect of the European Convention of Human Rights and of the European Court's case-law will prevail in the future so as to efficiently prevent violations of the ECHR.
In view of the foregoing, the Government is of the opinion that Latvia has complied with its obligation under Article 46 to abide by the judgment in the case of Podkolzina against Latvia.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy