Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 84
March 2006
Svipsta v. Latvia - 66820/01
Judgment 9.3.2006 [Section III]
Article 5
Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Automatic extension of pre-trial detention: violation
Article 5-4
Review of lawfulness of detention
Orders extending pre-trial detention without adequate grounds – defence unable to access the investigation file – lack of adequate judicial remedy to control the lawfulness of detention after committal for trial: violation
Facts: In June 2000 the applicant was placed under investigation on suspicion of murder and was placed in pre-trial detention. The court extended her pre-trial detention six times. All her appeals against the decisions were dismissed. The reasons given by the Latvian courts included the seriousness of the offence and, in some instances, the risk that she might reoffend or seek to evade justice. On 18 May 2001 the last order authorising the applicant’s detention expired, but the applicant was kept in prison under the fifth paragraph of Article 77 of the Latvian Code of Criminal Procedure (KPK). In October 2001 the Riga Regional Court committed the applicant for trial and ordered that she remain in prison pending trial. In September 2002 the applicant was found guilty. She was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, which was reduced to ten years on appeal. An appeal by the applicant was dismissed by the Senate of the Supreme Court.
Law: Article 5(1) – On 18 May 2001 the order authorising the applicant’s detention had expired, but she had not been released. She had remained in prison for four months and twenty-three days without authorisation by any judicial decision. That fact was sufficient in itself to pose a serious problem under Article 5(1). The applicant had been kept in prison on the basis of the fifth paragraph of Article 77 of the KPK, which stipulated that “the time taken for all the defendants to take cognisance of the documents in the investigation file shall not be taken into account in calculating the length of detention pending trial”. However, the wording had been so vague as to raise doubts as to its precise implications and to be open to more than one interpretation. It did not clearly state that there was a requirement to keep the defendant in detention, still less that it was possible to do so without a warrant. The provision in question therefore failed to satisfy the requirements of “lawfulness” laid down by Article 5(1). In reality the automatic extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been the result of a generalised practice on the part of the Latvian authorities which had no precise basis in legislation and had clearly been designed to compensate for the deficiencies in the KPK.
Conclusion: violation in respect of the above period of detention; no violation in respect of two others (unanimously).
Article 5(3) – The applicant’s pre-trial detention had lasted for over two years and three months. The reasons given in all the orders extending her pre-trial detention had been too brief and too abstract, since they went no further than mentioning certain statutory criteria while omitting to specify how those criteria applied to the individual case of the applicant. In addition, the orders had been drafted using a stereotypical pro forma model and, with a single exception, repeated from one order to the next the same grounds in the same form of words. The reasons which actually might have justified the applicant’s detention had become less relevant with time. However, the reasons given in the impugned orders had remained virtually identical and were clearly insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 5(3).
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5(4) – Reasons given for the orders extending the applicant’s detention: The court orders extending the applicant’s detention had consisted of a standard text file, prepared in advance, with a few tiny changes made on each occasion before it was printed and signed in summary fashion at the end of each hearing. Such a practice was in breach of Article 5(4) when, as in the instant case, it reflected a failure effectively to examine the parties’ observations. It was a prime example of denial of the fundamental guarantees enshrined in Article 5(4). While the appellate court decisions had been more detailed than those of the court of first instance, all but one had simply made vague references to the seriousness of the offence, the fact that it had been perpetrated by an organised group, the personality of the applicant and the danger of collusion, without substantiating the allegations made. In short, the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been decided on the basis of orders which gave no satisfactory reasons.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Access by defence counsel to the investigation file: The applicant’s lawyer had not been allowed access to the investigation file during 2001, despite the fact that it contained a number of elements which had been central to the applicant’s continued detention. It had therefore been essential for the defence to be able to consult the file in order to challenge effectively the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, which at the time had lasted for over six months.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Existence of an adequate remedy at the trial stage: When, on 11 October 2001, the judge took the decision to commit the defendant for trial whilst keeping her in detention, the KPK placed no time‑limit on the extension; in principle, it remained in force until delivery of the judgment on the merits. There had been no remedy available in Latvian law enabling the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention to be reviewed at intervals during the trial stage, in violation of Article 5(4). While the judge dealing with the case had examined the application for release lodged by the applicant on 12 October 2001, that had been merely a matter of practice which lacked any clear legal basis and could have been altered at any time, with the result that it did not satisfy the requirements of accessibility and effectiveness laid down by Article 5(4). Similarly, the application had been refused by means of a simple letter which, by definition, lacked the status of a judicial decision. Accordingly, from 11 October 2001 onwards, the applicant had had no adequate remedy whereby the lawfulness of her pre‑trial detention could be reviewed.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court held unanimously that the length of the criminal proceedings, namely three years and eight months, had been in breach of Article 6(1).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant a specified sum for costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy