THIRD SECTION
Application no. 25235/07
Ruslans SAVINS against Latvia
lodged on 20 July 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ruslans Savins, is a Latvian national who was born in 1980 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Daugavpils.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 1 April 2005 the applicant was detained on suspicion of robbery. On 4 April 2005 his pre-trial detention was authorised by a decision of a judge of the Rēzekne Court. The applicant appealed.
On 18 April 2005 the applicant’s appeal was examined by the Latgale Regional Court, composed of three judges – J.D. (the presiding judge), D.S., and J.V. The Regional Court noted that in his appeal the applicant had indicated that he had confessed and that he would not evade investigation because he had to repay a credit to a bank. The applicant also indicated his intention to form a family by getting married to his partner and by adopting her child. The Latgale Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court indicated, inter alia, that the applicant had four prior convictions, including one for robbery. It went on to reason:
“Despite having served a prison sentence, [the applicant] does not draw any conclusions and is once again suspected of having committed an identical crime. He commits such acts regardless of the considerations included in his own appeal, [such as] a bank credit, an intention to form a family...
[The applicant’s] personality and tendency to commit crimes are to be seen as exceptional grounds for [applying pre-trial detention]”.
On 4 December 2006 the Rēzekne Court convicted the applicant of robbery and of theft of personal identity documents and sentenced him to a prison term of eight years. The applicant appealed.
On 2 February 2007 the applicant’s appeal was examined by the Latgale Regional Court, composed of judges J.V. (the presiding judge), J.D. and D.S., the same judges who had previously examined his appeal against the decision of 4 April 2005. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed.
The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law, in which he complained, among other things, about the composition of the appeal court, which, according to the applicant, had been unlawful because of the three judges’ prior involvement in the same criminal proceedings.
On 19 April 2007 a single judge of the Senate of the Supreme Court informed the applicant that his appeal on points of law had not been accepted for adjudication on the merits in the Senate. With regard to the complaint about the composition of the appeal court the judge referred to an earlier decision of the Senate (see below, the Relevant domestic part and practice) in which no violation of the applicable procedural law had been found in a situation identical to that of the applicant.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Article 27 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in force until 30 September 2005) specifically provided that a judge’s prior involvement in decisions concerning preventive measures in criminal proceedings was not a valid ground for that judge’s disqualification from the adjudication of the merits of the same criminal case.
Section 52 (4) (1) of the Law of Criminal Procedure (in force since 1 October 2005) provides that a judge may not participate in the adjudication of a case if he or she has previously participated in the criminal proceedings in any status.
On 27 April 2006 the Senate of the Supreme Court (case no. SKK‑268/2006) examined an appeal on points of law, in which one of the arguments that had been raised concerned the composition of an appeal court of which two judges had previously examined the legality of the accused person’s pre-trial detention. In so far as is relevant here the Senate found that section 52 (4) (1) of the Law of Criminal Procedure did not disqualify judges from examining the merits of the case if their previous involvement in the case (that is, in adopting a decision concerning the preventive measure) had taken place at the time when the Code of Criminal Procedure was still in force, because the Code of Criminal Procedure did not contain a provision equivalent to section 52 (4) (1) of the Law of Criminal Procedure.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 5 § 1, 14 and 17 of the Convention as well as Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 about the allegedly unlawful composition of the appeal court in his criminal case and about the unlawful character of his detention flowing from the decision of that court.
The applicant also complains that, since his appeal on points of law was rejected by a decision of a single judge of the Senate of the Supreme Court, he did not have any effective recourse against the allegedly unlawful composition of the appeal court.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, in particular the composition of the appeal court and the appeal court judges’ earlier role in the same criminal proceedings when adopting the decision of 18 April 2005, did the applicant benefit from an impartial tribunal?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy