FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 39676/05
Andrejs KUZMANS and Dace JANKAUSKA
against Latvia
lodged on 1 November 2005
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicants, Mr Andrejs Kuzmans and Ms Dace Jankauska, are Latvian nationals, who were born in 1970 and 1976 respectively.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 26 May 2006 the applicant lodged an application to the Administrative District Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa) in which he asked for recognition that the actions of the officials of the short-term detention facilities of the State police Ventspils City police station (Valsts policijas Ventspils pilsētas un rajona policijas pārvaldes Īslaicīgās aizturēšanas izolators) had been unlawful. The applicant complained that from 23 August 2003 until the material time he had been periodically detained in inhuman conditions in the above short-term detention facilities. He complained, in particular, that for a period of 182 days (non-consecutive) he had been held in a cell without fresh air, in unsanitary conditions. In winter, when the cell was not heated, the moist walls of the cell were covered with ice, whereas when the cell was heated the ventilation was not working and the cell was full of smoke coming from the chimney. Holes in the floor of the cell were full of water, with grass growing in them. He had no access to a lavatory; there was a bucket in the cell to be used as a toilet. No outside walks were provided and there was no opportunity to see daylight. There was only one bed in the cell for all the detainees; there was no other furniture. The cell was infected with insects. He also complained that he had been deprived of medical assistance and that communication with the relatives had been prohibited. At a later date the applicant asked for compensation in the amount of LVL 250,000 (about EUR 357,000) for the above infringements.
4. As the above application was written in Russian, the applicant had been given a time-limit to file the complaint in the official State language. The deadline was on several occasions extended. On 13 November 2006 the applicant submitted the complaint written in Latvian. By a decision of 16 November 2006 the Administrative District Court noted that the applicant’s complaint raised a serious issue. It recognised that this triggered a prompt reaction and it was therefore decided that the applicant had submitted the properly-filed application within the time-limit set by the Administrative court and 26 May 2005 was considered as the date of introduction of the complaint. After having examined the applicant’s request to exempt him from the State fee, on 18 December 2006 the Administrative District Court accepted the application.
5. On 28 February 2008 the Administrative District Court dismissed the application. It observed that the State authorities had acknowledged that the conditions in the Ventspils police short-term detention facilities did not comply with the requirements set forth in the domestic law. The court also noted that as from 1 October 2006 the above detention facilities had been closed. It further observed that despite the critical conditions in the detention facilities it could not be established that the conditions there had been created in order to ill-treat the applicant. The judgment also noted that the applicant had been held there only periodically and he had received necessary medical care.
As far as the complaint concerned the restrictions imposed on sending correspondence in the short-term detention facilities, the court recognised that there was no evidence that the applicant or his partner had complied with the rules set forth in the police bylaws (Valsts policijas īslaicīgas aizturēšanas izolatoru nolikums), adopted on 8 December 1999 by the decree no. 872 issued by the head of the State police.
6. On 25 April 2008 the Administrative District Court sent the applicant’s appeal of 17 March 2008 to the Administrative Regional Court.
7. On 14 September 2009 the Administrative Regional Court dismissed the application as far as it concerned the complaints for the period from August 2003 to May 2005. The appellate court noted in this relation that each period of detention in the Ventspils short-term isolation unit should be considered as a finished factual action (pabeigta faktiskā rīcība), and the applicant could have submitted a complaint and contested the authorities’ factual action in relation to each of those separate periods. It recognised that it was outside its jurisdiction to decide on reinstating the time-limit for complaints which had been submitted out of time.
The appellate court further analysed the Court’s case-law adopted under Article 3 of the Convention and addressed separately each allegation the applicant had raised in relation to the detention conditions. The court recognised that the defendant had acted unlawfully by failing to provide the applicant with daily walks for various periods between July 2005 to March 2006, in total 122 days, and as a result the applicant’s rights had been considerably infringed (radīts būtisks tiesību aizskārums). He was awarded compensation in the amount of LVL 1000 (about EUR 1400).
With respect to the restrictions of correspondence, the appellate court recognised that the actions of the authorities had not been lawful. In the particular case it established, however, that neither the applicant nor his partner had ever attempted to send any letters and therefore the court could not conclude that the applicant’s rights had been considerably infringed.
The remainder of the application was dismissed, including the allegations that the applicant had no access to court due to his poor knowledge of the official State language.
8. At the applicant’s appeal on points of law of 28 September 2009, on 9 July 2010 the Senate of the Administrative Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court (in an extended composition) quashed the appellate court’s judgment and sent it to the Administrative Regional Court. The Senate noted that the lower court had not dismissed as submitted out of time the complaints concerning the period from 2003 to 2005 and therefore, at the applicant’s request, the appellate court should decide whether to reinstate the time-limit.
It also criticised the appellate court’s approach by which it analysed each complaint separately in relation to the detention conditions, and noted that the separate aspects of the conditions of detention, if taken together, may exceed the level of severity permissible in detention. As far as it concerned the restrictions on visits and correspondence, the Senate noted that the fact that the applicant had not attempted to send any letters should not lead to a conclusion that the infringement to his rights had been less important.
9. On 29 April 2011 the Administrative Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request to reinstate the running of the time-limit in relation to the complaints which concerned the period of detention from August 2003 to May 2005. In this respect the court argued that the Administrative courts had become functional as from February 2004 and that the case-file disclosed evidence that the applicant had been informed of a possibility of lodging a claim with the Administrative court. Accordingly the administrative proceedings in this part were discontinued.
The appellate court further decided that from 27 July 2005 to 4 August 2006 (i.e. 145 days) the actions of the short-term detention unit had been unlawful. The court recognised that during that period the applicant had been detained in inhuman conditions and his rights to correspondence and telephone use had been unlawfully restricted. It also found that there was no evidence that his visiting rights had been infringed. The applicant was awarded LVL 2500 (about EUR 3570) in compensation. The remainder of the complaint was dismissed.
10. On 8 July 2011 the Administrative Regional Court accepted the appeal on points of law which the applicant had submitted out of time.
11. On 20 April 2012 the Senate observed that the applicant in substance complained about the amount of compensation awarded. Recalling that in setting the award the Administrative court should take into consideration, inter alia, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Senate quashed the judgment of 29 April 2011 as far as it concerned the amount of the compensation. This part of the case was sent to the Administrative Regional Court for new adjudication.
12. On 11 July 2012 the Administrative Regional Court awarded the applicant in total LVL 8000 (about EUR 11,000) in compensation for the above violations (see paragraph 9 above).
13. The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law complaining of the amount of the awarded compensation.
14. By a final decision of 13 December 2012 the Senate dismissed the appeal and refused to institute cassation proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The first applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been held in inhuman conditions in the Ventspils Police short-term detention facilities and that the compensation awarded by the national courts in the amount of LVL 8000 (about EUR 11,000) could not be regarded as sufficient.
He also complains under Article 6 about the length of the administrative proceedings.
Both applicants complain under Article 8 that while the first applicant was detained he was not allowed to meet, to send letters to or telephone his partner, the second applicant.
Finally, the first applicant also invokes other complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 34 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedies in relation to his complaints under Articles 3 and 8, as required by Articles 35 § 1 and 13 of the Convention? (see, Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 78, 17 January 2012, and Melnītis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, §§ 46-52, 28 February 2012).
2. Did the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Ventspils police short-term detention facilities amount to treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, especially as far as the complaint concerns the period of detention from August 2003 to May 2005 which had been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Administrative Regional Court by its judgment of 29 April 2011?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family/private life and correspondence while he was detained in the Ventspils police short-term detention facilities, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, especially as far as the complaint concerns the period of detention from August 2003 to May 2005 which had been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Administrative Regional Court by its judgment of 29 April 2011?
4. Was the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy