Communicated on 20 September 2017
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 16800/11
Roberts ŽEREBKOVS
against Latvia
lodged on 2 March 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Roberts Žerebkovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1970 and is currently detained in Chelmsford, Essex. He is represented before the Court by Mr B. Klopcovs.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
3. On 16 August 2005 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and two other individuals.
4. On 6 December 2005 the case file was received at the first-instance court for adjudication. Firstly two hearings were postponed owing to the absence of one of the co-defendants, R.Z. No proceedings were pending between 6 April 2006 and 14 November 2008 while the authorities searched for R.Z. When proceedings resumed, five hearings were postponed owing to the absence of either the victim or various witnesses. Four hearings were postponed owing to a judge’s illness or absence for work-related commitments. Three hearings were postponed for unknown reasons. One hearing was postponed owing to the need to amend the bill of indictment. Three hearings were postponed at the request of R.Z. and eight more hearings were postponed owing to his illness or absence. On 28 September 2012 the court removed the proceedings against R.Z. into a separate set of proceedings.
5. On 1 October 2012 the first-instance court convicted the applicant of‑amongst other offences – repeated robbery as one of an organised group of perpetrators. In determining the sentence the court took into account that the reasonable time requirement for completion of criminal proceedings had been breached. The court set his sentence at eight years and six months’ imprisonment, to which it joined the sentence which had been imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings. The overall sentence was set at nine years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed and requested a reduction of his sentence.
6. On 30 April 2013 the appellate court upheld the applicant’s conviction but amended the robbery charge to a more lenient one – robbery as part of a group – by excluding one aggravating factor (repeated offence). The appellate court reduced his sentence to four years and three months’ imprisonment, to which it joined the sentence which had been imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings. The overall sentence was set at seven years and six months’ imprisonment.
7. On 10 July 2013 the Senate of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment in respect of the sentencing and remitted the case to the appellate court.
8. On 6 November 2013 the appellate court further reduced the applicant’s sentence to four years’ imprisonment and concluded that he had served his sentence in full. The appellate court took into account more lenient criminal-law provisions regarding sentencing which had come into force in the meantime, together with the facts that the applicant had confessed, that he had been subject to lengthy pre-trial detention, and that the reasonable time requirement for completion of criminal proceedings had been breached. This ruling took effect on 3 December 2013 since no appeals on points of law were lodged.
2. Civil proceedings instituted by the applicant
9. On 29 July 2011 the applicant instituted civil proceedings (case no. C27200511) against the State to claim compensation on account of unreasonably long criminal proceedings against him. He requested 7,028 Latvian lati (LVL) (approx. 10,000 euros (EUR)). He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, Article 92 of the Constitution and section 1635 of the Civil Law (see paragraph 14 below).
10. On 26 March 2012 the first-instance court dismissed his claim.
11. On 11 March 2013 the appellate court quashed that judgment and partly upheld the applicant’s claim. The appellate court examined information provided by the applicant (see paragraph 4 above) and established that the criminal proceedings, which had not been particularly complex, had been pending for more than six years before the first-instance court for reasons unrelated to the applicant. It referred to Article 6 of the Convention, Article 92 of the Constitution and section 1635 of the Civil Law and awarded the applicant LVL 500 (approx. EUR 711) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Both parties appealed on points of law to contest that award.
12. On 30 December 2014 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, finding that the appellate court in the criminal proceedings had taken into account the length of those proceedings when determining the sentence (see paragraph 8 above). The applicant had therefore also received a form of redress for legal uncertainty (atlīdzinājums par tiesisko nenoteiktību) in the criminal proceedings.
B. Relevant domestic law
13. The relevant provisions in relation to criminal proceedings have been cited in Trūps v. Latvia (dec.) (no. 58497/08, §§ 16-18 and 23-24, 20 November 2012). Moreover, section 491(1)(1) of the Criminal Law regarding sentencing has been quoted in Bērziņš v. Latvia (dec.) (no. 30780/13, § 20, 20 May 2014).
14. The relevant provisions in relation to civil proceedings (Article 92 of the Constitution and section 1635 of the Civil Law) have been cited in Zikovs v. Latvia (dec.) (no. 17689/14, §§ 14 and 17, 30 June 2015).
COMPLAINT
15. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.
QUESTIONS
1. Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (see Bērziņš v. Latvia (dec.), no. 30780/13, §§ 33-39, 20 May 2014, and Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, §§ 27-28, 26 June 2001)?
2. In particular, have the national authorities afforded redress by reducing the applicant’s sentence in the criminal proceedings against him in an express and measurable manner and/or by granting him adequate monetary compensation following the civil proceedings?
3. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy