BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

    No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
    Thank you very much for your support!



    BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

    European Court of Human Rights
    You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Vjaceslavs KONDRASOVS v Latvia - 26555/02 [2009] ECHR 737 (7 April 2009)
    URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/737.html
    Cite as: [2009] ECHR 737

    [New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


    THIRD SECTION

    DECISION

    Application no. 26555/02
    by Vjačeslavs KONDRAŠOVS
    against Latvia

    The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 April 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

    Josep Casadevall, President,
     Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
     Corneliu Bîrsan,
     Boštjan M. Zupančič,
     Alvina Gyulumyan,
     Egbert Myjer,
     Ineta Ziemele, judges,

    and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

    Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 July 2002,

    Having regards to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

    Having deliberated, decides as follows:

    THE FACTS

    The applicant, Mr. Vjačeslavs Kondrašovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Jaunolaine. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mrs. I. Reine.

    The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

    On 30 September 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence and placed in a remand prison. On 22 December 1995 the Riga Regional Court found him guilty of this offence and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. It was decided not to change the preventive measure imposed on the applicant pending the judgment coming into force.

    On 26 August 1997 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion that he might have committed other aggravated criminal offences, i.e., illegal acquisition of a firearm and ammunition and concealment of a criminal offence. On an unspecified date the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Riga Regional Court for adjudication. It appears that these criminal proceedings took place while the applicant remained in the remand prison and that at each stage of the proceedings the courts determined the prison sentence taking into consideration that the applicant had been in the remand prison since 30 September 1994.

    Assuming that the period of the applicant's imprisonment before his conviction on 22 December 1995 was deducted from the sentence, he should have completed his five-year sentence on 30 September 1999.

    On 14 March 2000 the Riga Regional Court found the applicant guilty of illegal acquisition of a firearm and ammunition and concealment of a criminal offence and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. Taking into account his conviction on 22 December 1995, ten years' imprisonment was determined as the final sentence. The court noted that the applicant had been in the remand prison between 30 September 1994 and 14 March 2000. It was decided not to change the preventive measure imposed on him pending the judgment coming into force. In establishing the applicant's guilt, the court relied on the incriminating statements made by his co-accused and seven witnesses, on four expert opinions and documentary evidence. The applicant was represented by defence counsel.

    The applicant appealed against the judgment. However, on 17 May 2000 he withdrew the appeal.

    On 6 October 2000, on the appeals of the co-accused and the victim, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 14 March 2000 and remitted the case to the Public Prosecutor's Office for additional investigation. It was decided not to change the preventive measure imposed on the applicant and to extend his detention on remand for one month, i.e. 6 November 2000. The decision was not subject to appeal.

    According to the applicant, on 14 February 2001 the investigation of his case was completed. On an unspecified date the case was transferred to the Riga Regional Court for adjudication.

    On 18 May 2001 the Riga Regional Court received the case.

    On 21 May 2001 the Riga Regional Court extended the applicant's detention on remand.

    On 30 May 2003 the Riga Regional Court found the applicant guilty of illegal acquisition of a firearm and ammunition and two aggravated murders and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment. The court noted that the applicant had been in the remand prison between 30 September 1994 and 30 May 2003. It was decided not to change the preventive measure imposed on him pending the judgment coming into force. In establishing the applicant's guilt, the court relied on the incriminating statements made by his co-accused and seven witnesses, on six expert opinions and documentary evidence. The applicant was represented by defence counsel and assisted by an interpreter. The applicant appealed against the judgment.

    On 11 February 2004 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Riga Regional Court of 30 May 2003. The case was remitted to the Riga Regional Court for adjudication de novo. It was established that the court had breached the applicant's right to make his final statement. The applicant was represented by defence counsel and assisted by an interpreter.

    On 10 May 2004 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court examined the request of a judge of the Riga Regional Court to extend the detention on remand of the applicant. The applicant was not present at the hearing. He submitted a written request, asking to be released and alleging that the request of the judge of the Riga Regional Court was not objective. The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, taking into account the severity of the crime with which the applicant was charged, the danger of his absconding and the possibility that he could impede the investigation, decided to extend the detention on remand of the applicant until 1 September 2004. The decision was not subject to appeal.

    On 10 August 2004 the Riga Regional Court found the applicant guilty of illegal acquisition of a firearm and ammunition and two aggravated murders and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. Taking into account his conviction on 22 December 1995, eleven years and three months' imprisonment was determined as the final sentence. The court noted that the applicant had been in the remand prison between 27 September 1994 and 9 August 2004. It was decided not to change the preventive measure imposed on him. In establishing the applicant's guilt, the court relied on the incriminating statements made by two co-accused and seven witnesses, on four expert opinions and documentary evidence. The applicant was represented by defence counsel and assisted by an interpreter. The applicant appealed against the judgment.

    According to the applicant, he was released on 27 December 2005. Since 30 September 1994 the detention on remand as the preventive measure applied in the applicant's case had remained unchanged.

    On 14 September 2006 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 10 August 2004 in part, reducing the applicant's sentence to eleven years' imprisonment. It was established that the applicant had served his prison sentence. He was represented by defence counsel and assisted by an interpreter. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against this decision to the Senate of the Supreme Court.

    COMPLAINTS

  1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been deprived of a trial within a reasonable time.

  2. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (a) and (e) of the Convention that during the pre-trial investigation he had not been informed in his mother tongue about the nature and cause of the accusations against him.

  3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention that he did not have adequate time for the preparation of his defence.

  4. Invoking Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention the applicant complained that his legal counsel had defended him in an ineffective manner.

  5. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that not all witnesses were summoned for the court hearings.

  6. Without invoking any Article of the Convention, the applicant complained that he spent more than ten years in the remand prison. During this whole period he was deprived of the possibility to have his detention reviewed in order to change the preventive measure imposed on him to a more lenient one. He alleges that the detention on remand in his case was extended three times and that he was deprived of pre-trial release. He further complained that throughout the whole period of his detention, he was not allowed to correspond with his relatives or to meet them. He could not study or work and was not allowed to receive books.

    7. THE LAW

    On 14 November 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government. The declaration provided as follows:

    “I, Inga Reine, Agent for the Government of the Republic of Latvia, declare that the Government of Latvia offer to pay ex gratia 3 000 euros to Mr Vjačeslavs Kondrašovs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

    This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Latvian lati at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

    The applicant at first rejected this proposal, but at a later stage of proceedings decided to accept it. In a letter of 26 November 2008 the applicant informed the Court that he agreed not to pursue his application. On 9 February 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the applicant. The declaration provided as follows:

    “I, Vjačeslavs Kondrašovs, note that the Government of Latvia are prepared to pay me ex gratia 3 000 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

    This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Latvian lati at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three-months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

    I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Latvia in respect of the facts giving raise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”

    The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).

    In these circumstances, the case should be struck out of the list

    For these reasons, the Court unanimously

    Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

    Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
    Registrar President




BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/737.html