Communicated on 17 November 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 35726/10
Jānis CINIS
against Latvia
lodged on 2 June 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Jānis Cinis, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Jūrmala.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. First set of administrative offence proceedings
3. On 27 February 2009 the applicant was found guilty of administrative offence of drunk driving. His driving licence was withdrawn for a period of two years.
2. Second set of administrative offence proceedings
4. On 31 July 2009 the police drew up an administrative offence record stating that the applicant had been driving a vehicle without a licence in violation of section 1494(6) of the Code of Administrative Violations (Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodekss). He was fined approximately 357 euros (EUR).
5. On 19 October 2009 the applicant appealed to the administrative courts.
6. On 20 December 2010 the Administrative District Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
7. On 24 April 2012 his appeal was finally dismissed by the Administrative Regional Court (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa).
3. Third set of administrative offence proceedings
8. On 23 September 2009 the police drew up an administrative offence record stating that the applicant had repeatedly been driving a vehicle without a licence in violation of section 1494(7) of the Code of Administrative Violations.
9. Upon the applicant’s appeal, on 6 November 2009 the Riga City Zemgale District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Zemgales priekšpilsētas tiesa) found the applicant administratively liable for repeated driving without a licence under section 1494(7) of the Code. The applicant was sentenced to five days’ administrative arrest and fined approximately EUR 571.
10. The applicant’s conviction was upheld by a final judgment of the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) on 26 February 2010.
11. The Riga Regional Court referred to the administrative offence of 31 July 2009 and stated that the fact that the appeal proceedings in respect of it were pending did not mean that the applicant could not be found guilty of repeated administrative offence.
B. Relevant domestic law
12. Article 92 of the Constitution (Satversme) provides that everyone shall be presumed innocent until his or her guilt has been established in accordance with the law.
13. Under section 1494(6) of the Code of Administrative Violations a person shall be held administratively liable if he or she drives a vehicle without a licence and under section 1494(7) – if he or she drives a vehicle without a licence for the second time within a year.
Section 283(1) of the Code at the time provided that the lodging of an appeal did not suspend the execution of a decision imposing a fine.
COMPLAINT
14. Referring to Articles 1 and 6, and Articles 2 and 4 of Protocol No.7 to the Convention, the applicant complains that he was convicted of a repeated administrative offence even though his guilt with regard to the first administrative offence had not yet been established according to law.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the domestic courts’ findings in the proceedings against the applicant for repeated driving without a licence compatible with the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, in view of the ongoing proceedings reviewing the lawfulness of the first decision concerning driving without a license?
2. Is there a remedial mechanism in domestic law and practice in case the first set of proceedings concerning driving without licence end with a decision annulling that administrative violation but, when this decision is rendered, the person has already been finally punished for repeated driving without a licence under section 1494(7) of the Code of Administrative Violations?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy