THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39081/07
by Oskars JURĢIS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 August 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Oskars Jurģis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Rīga, Latvia. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In February 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of malfeasance in office. On an unspecified date he was committed for trial.
On 4 June 1999 and 28 May 2001 the Rīga City Latgale District Court decided to remit the case back to the prosecutors’ office attached to that court for additional investigation.
On 19 September 2002, upon the prosecutor’s appeal, the Criminal Chamber of Rīga Regional Court decided to quash the decision of 28 May 2001 and remitted the case to the Rīga City Latgale District Court for re-examination.
On 14 May 2003 the Rīga City Latgale District Court acquitted the applicant on grounds of the lack of criminal elements.
On 13 November 2006 and on 15 March 2007 the Criminal Chamber of the Rīga Regional Court and the Senate of the Supreme Court respectively upheld the acquittal.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant initially complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably long.
2. He also complained that that his rights had been breached in that he having the procedural status of a suspect, an accused and a defendant in the criminal proceedings against him could not develop a career in his area of specialisation.
THE LAW
On 24 June 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Inga Reine, the Agent for the Government, declare that the Government of Latvia offer to pay ex gratia 4,400 euros to Mr Oskars Jurģis with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Latvian lats [LVL] at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Oskars Jurģis, note that the Government of Latvia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 4,400 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Latvian lats [LVL] at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Latvia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy