CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
André Potocki;Mārtiņš Mits
4. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Riga. 5. On 23 April 2003 criminal proceedings were instituted. 6. On 29 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted bribery. 7. On 2 May 2003 the applicant was detained on remand. On 25 July 2003 he was released and police supervision was imposed instead, under which he was obliged not to leave his home district without the authorisation of the investigation authorities, and to report to the local police department twice a week. 8. On 27 November 2003 a bill of indictment was served on the applicant and his two co-accused (D.E. and V.M.). On 2 December 2003 a judge of the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) accepted the criminal case for trial. The first hearing was scheduled to take place from 1 to 4 August 2005. 9. On 1 August 2005 the hearing was adjourned for an indefinite period owing to D.E.’s poor state of health and the fact that the applicant’s defence lawyer was on vacation. 10. On 1 October 2005 the new Criminal Procedure Law entered into force; it introduced new rules concerning, inter alia, conflicts of interest faced by judges. In the light of the new rules, on 22 February 2006 the hearing was adjourned because one of the judges of the Riga Regional Court had had to recuse herself from the trial. 11. On 31 July 2006 the hearing was adjourned because the prosecutor and the applicant’s defence lawyer were due to go away on holiday. 12. On 13 November 2006 the hearing was adjourned once again owing to D.E.’s poor state of health. On 15 November 2006 a judge from the Riga Regional Court requested the hospital in which D.E. was being treated to provide information about her state of health. On 20 November 2006 the court was informed that D.E. had been discharged from the hospital and placed under the care of her family doctor. 13. On 27 February 2007 the hearing was adjourned for unspecified reasons. 14. On 26 June 2007 the hearing was adjourned again owing to D.E.’s poor state of health. On the same day the Riga Regional Court ordered that D.E. undergo a medical examination in order for her capacity to participate in the proceedings to be determined. The findings of that examination were delivered less than one month later and indicated that D.E. was able to participate in the proceedings. 15. On 27 September 2007 the Riga Regional Court scheduled the next hearing for 27 December 2007. On 18 October 2007 D.E.’s lawyer requested that that hearing be rescheduled in order to accommodate his taking planned holidays. The court dismissed that request, noting that six hearings had already been adjourned and that further delays in the proceedings could not be allowed. 16. On 27 December 2007 the hearing was adjourned, as the prosecution needed to replace the charge against the applicant with a more lenient one. 17. On 11 January 2008 the Riga Regional Court started to hear the parties’ arguments regarding the merits of the case. On 15 January 2008 it convicted the applicant of attempted bribery and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. 18. On 4 February 2008 the applicant submitted an appeal. On 1 December 2008 the appellate court upheld the lower court’s judgment. 19. On 30 December 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing, inter alia, that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached. In this respect he referred to several provisions of national and international law, including Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 20. By a final decision of 26 January 2009 the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāts) refused the applicant leave to appeal on points of law, noting, inter alia, that the applicant’s “reference to violations of certain laws and international legal provisions was formalistic.”