THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 43372/02
by Aldis PUNDURS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ján Šikuta,
Ineta Ziemele,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 November 2002,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Aldis Pundurs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Rīga. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 8 August 2001 the applicant was hit by a car while he was riding his bicycle. He was taken to hospital, where he was diagnosed with contusions of the head and jaw. He was released on the same day.
4. On 7 September 2001 the Traffic Police Division of the Rīga City Main Police Department (Rīgas pilsētas Galvenās Policijas Pārvaldes Ceļu Policijas nodaļa) (hereinafter “the traffic police”) decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the driver of the car. It was established that a passenger, to whom the driver was giving a lift, unexpectedly opened the door of the car, and the applicant hit the door. The identity of the passenger was not established.
5. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Rīga City Transport Public Prosecutor’s office (Rīgas autotransporta prokuratūra), alleging that the driver knew the passenger and thus could identify him. The applicant also complained that he had sustained health problems in the accident.
6. On 28 September 2001 a prosecutor attached to the Rīga City Transport Public Prosecutor’s office quashed the earlier decision and returned the case for additional investigation. Another decision not to institute criminal proceedings was adopted on 15 April 2002, but this too was later quashed. Various forensic medical and technical expert assessments were carried out throughout the investigation.
7. On 4 June 2002 a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s office informed the applicant that, according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, he could not have access to the decisions regarding the expert assessments.
8. On 11 July 2002 the traffic police informed the applicant that the passenger had been identified.
9. On 19 August 2002 the traffic police adopted a decision not to institute criminal proceedings and informed the applicant about it. The decision described in detail the circumstances of the accident and referred to the outcomes of the forensic medical and technical assessments. It concluded that the passenger had violated section 129 (2) of the Administrative Offences Code (see Relevant domestic law below), and that his wrongful act was the cause of the traffic accident. It also referred to the fact that the applicant had sustained minor injuries. The passenger was administratively fined in the amount of about 20 euros (EUR).
10. After examining the applicant’s appeals in which he contested the decision not to institute criminal proceedings on 3 and 22 October 2002 the Office of the Prosecutor General upheld the earlier decision.
11. On 21 October 2002 the applicant asked the Prosecutor General to inform him where and when he could get acquainted with the materials in the file relating to the traffic accident. On 22 November 2002 the applicant was informed that pursuant to section 261 of the Administrative Offence Code he has to submit an identical request to the investigating authority.
B. Relevant domestic law, as in force at the material time
1. Criminal Procedure Code (Latvijas Kriminālprocesa Kodekss; in force until 1 October 2005)
12. Pursuant to Section 47, circumstances which have to be proved during pre-trial investigation include, inter alia, the amount of pecuniary loss suffered as a result of a crime.
13. Section 101 stipulates that a civil claim may be submitted by persons who have suffered damage as a result of a crime. A civil claim may be brought against an accused or against a person who is vicariously liable for the acts of the accused. A person shall have the right to lodge a civil claim by way of civil proceedings if a claim has not been brought in criminal proceedings.
14. According to Section 140, a person who has suffered damage as a result of a crime can be declared a civil party during pre-trial investigation.
15. Section 308 stipulates that if a civil claim is left unexamined, a victim shall have the right to file the same claim by way of civil proceedings.
16. Section 222 provides that a complaint about public prosecutors’ actions can be submitted to a hierarchically superior prosecutor.
2. Law of Civil Procedure (Civilprocesa likums)
17. According to section 7 § 1, civil claims for compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage in criminal matters may be brought in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Civil Law (Civillikums)
18. Section 1635 stipulates that every wrongful act or failure to act per se shall give the person who has suffered damage thereby the right to claim compensation from the wrongdoer, in so far as he or she may be held liable for that act.
19. Other relevant provisions of the Civil Law applicable at the material time, and other relevant matters are to be found in Zavoloka v. Latvia, no. 58447/00, §§ 15-19, 7 July 2009.
4. The Administrative Offences Code
20. According to section 129, pedestrians who have violated traffic rules and caused a traffic accident or minor injuries to a victim shall be fined in an amount from 10 to 50 lati (LVL).
21. According to section 261, a victim is a person to whom non-pecuniary, physical or material harm has been caused by an administrative violation. The victim has the right to, inter alia, be familiarised with all the materials in the proceedings, to submit requests and to appeal against the decision in administrative offence proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
22. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was deprived of access to court to claim compensation for damage caused by a traffic accident. He alleges that criminal proceedings could not be invoked in that the decisions of the police authorities could not be appealed against in the courts. Also, he was unable to institute civil proceedings owing to the fact that the police and the prosecution refused to disclose the materials of the investigation to him, especially as regards the identity and address of the person who caused the accident.
23. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that State officials abused their authority unpunished and that the police authorities and public prosecutors failed to protect his rights, thus depriving him of access to court regarding the criminal, administrative and civil matters of the case.
24. He further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lengthy and ineffective preliminary investigation into the criminal proceedings.
THE LAW Complaints under Article 6 of the Convention
25. The Government first contested the applicability of Article 6 ratione materiae. With respect to access to the materials of the criminal case the Government argued that no criminal proceedings had been instituted with respect to the traffic accident. Accordingly, Article 6 of the Convention may not be interpreted as guaranteeing a person who had not been recognised as a party to the proceedings unlimited access to a criminal file. The Government also argued that the applicant has never claimed compensation against the alleged perpetrator or been a party to civil proceedings.
26. Secondly, the Government argued that the applicant could not claim victim status under Article 34 of the Convention in that he had not asked the national authorities to provide him with information about the alleged perpetrator in order to submit a civil claim against him. Besides, the non-institution of a criminal case in no way prevented the applicant from having access to court in civil damages proceedings.
27. The applicant maintained that in order to lodge a civil claim against the perpetrator he had to familiarise himself with the materials of the police investigation into the traffic accident.
28. With respect to the criminal proceedings, the Court observes that, as noted by the Government, at no stage during the investigation of the traffic accident did the applicant make any claim for damages. The applicant’s various complaints about the refusal to institute criminal proceedings were aiming at securing the prosecution of the perpetrator. According to the Court’s well-established case-law the proceedings aiming to have third parties prosecuted for a criminal offence do not fall within the concept of civil rights as enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, 12 February 2004).
29. The Court also notes that the authorities had investigated the traffic accident and identified the perpetrator, who was punished following administrative offence proceedings (see paragraphs 8-9, above), therefore fulfilling the positive obligation to properly conduct an effective investigation of the accident (see, mutatis mutandis, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002‑I).
30. It follows that the complaint under this head must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
31. On the same grounds the Court finds inadmissible the complaint under the same article about the lengthy and ineffective preliminary investigation.
32. The Court shall next assess the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with respect to the alleged failure to provide him with access to court in order to institute civil proceedings.
33. Even if the applicant has never been a party to civil proceedings, the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention may also be relied on by anyone who complains that he has not had the opportunity to have access to court in order to review his claim (see Plotiņa v. Latvia (dec.), no. 16825/02, 3 June 2008).
34. In follows that the complaint under this head is compatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.
35. The Court has already observed that under Latvian law in force at the material time the outcome of the criminal proceedings might not be considered determinative for the success of civil proceedings (see Blumberga v. Latvia, no. 70930/01, § 68, 14 October 2008). Besides, according to the domestic law, a right to claim damages is an independent and justiciable right, therefore, in case of damage, everyone is entitled to judicial protection and compensation (see Relevant domestic law, above).
36. In the particular case the Court notes that, as submitted by the Government, on 19 August 2002 the traffic police informed the applicant about the decision by which the perpetrator was identified and held administratively liable for violating the Administrative Offences Code, noting also the causal link between the wrongful act of the perpetrator and the consequences caused by it (see paragraph 9, above). At a later stage the Office of the Prosecutor informed the applicant of the procedure needed to obtain the materials of the administrative offence proceedings (see paragraph 11, above). Therefore, the Court finds it unsupported that from the moment when the applicant discovered the outcome of the administrative offence proceedings he was unaware, or prevented from finding out, the necessary information about the perpetrator in order to lodge a civil claim against that person.
37. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of any of the above Articles of the Convention. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention
B. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention
38. Having regard to the aforementioned conclusion, the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy