CASE OF LIEPIŅŠ v. LATVIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)
Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
6. The applicant was born in 1965. 7. The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8. On 11 December 2002 the Jēkabpils District Court (Jēkabpils rajona tiesa) found the applicant guilty of aggravated theft. The judgment of the District Court did not indicate that the applicant had a lawyer. 9. The applicant was given a prison sentence of two years. Having taken into account the applicant’s seven prior convictions the District Court imposed a final prison sentence of three years and six months. 10. On 24 January 2003 the Zemgale Regional Court (Zemgales apgabaltiesa) partially upheld the applicant’s appeal against the above-mentioned first-instance judgment. The judgment of the District Court indicated that the applicant’s lawyer, G.L., had participated. 11. The Regional Court reclassified the charge as theft of a small amount and reduced the prison sentence to six months, reducing the final prison sentence to three years and one month accordingly. 12. On 27 January 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the appeal judgment with the Criminal Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court. On 14 February 2003 he supplemented his appeal. 13. The Government submitted, and the applicant did not argue otherwise, that in his appeal on points of law the applicant had not expressed a wish to participate in the cassation hearing. 14. At its preparatory session on 20 February 2003 the Senate of the Supreme Court decided to accept the appeal for review on points of law and scheduled the hearing for 11 March 2003. 15. On 21 February 2003 the Senate of the Supreme Court wrote to the applicant informing him that the cassation hearing had been scheduled for 11 March 2003. The notification was also addressed to the lawyer, G.L. 16. The letter also stated that the applicant had the right to participate in the cassation hearing. However, in the event of non-appearance by the parties the hearing could be held in their absence. 17. On 27 February 2003 the applicant made a request to participate in the cassation hearing “in order to provide the necessary explanations”. 18. As submitted by the Government, on 3 March 2003 the applicant’s request was received at the registry of the Senate of the Supreme Court. 19. On 4 March 2003 V.E., a judge of the Senate of the Supreme Court, wrote to the director of Daugavpils Prison, where the applicant was held at the time, in the following terms: “Concerning [the applicant’s] request about the possibility of participating in the court hearing of 11 March, please inform [him] that it is impossible to ensure [his participation]. He made no such request in his appeal on points of law. His request to participate in the hearing of 11 March was received at the Supreme Court only on 3 March. [A]s escorts from the Daugavpils Prison to Riga depart only on 4 and 12 [March], it is no longer possible to organise his transport to the hearing of 11 March.” 20. On 11 March 2003 the hearing took place before the Senate of the Supreme Court. 21. The only party present was the public prosecutor. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer participated. 22. The decision of the Senate of the Supreme Court dated 11 March 2003 indicated, inter alia, that the Senate had heard the prosecutor’s opinion that the lower court’s judgment should be left unmodified. 23. The Senate of the Supreme Court upheld the appeal judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. That decision was final. 24. On 11 February 2004 the Jēkabpils District Court, in view of the amendments to the Criminal Law (Krimināllikums), which were applicable retroactively, decided that the applicant should be released from prison as he had already served his sentence.