PŪCE v. LATVIA
Inadmissible
Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
1. The applicant, Mr Agnis Pūce, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Ventspils. 2. 3. On 3 December 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having damaged an oil product pipeline and of attempted theft. On 4 December 2006 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by a judge. On 13 July 2007 the Ventspils Court (Ventspils tiesa) convicted the applicant of the aforementioned crimes and sentenced him to two years in prison. Considering that the applicant had been previously convicted and that in those criminal proceedings he had been given a suspended prison sentence of two years, the final sentence for the applicant’s two convictions was set at three years’ imprisonment. 4. On 7 January 2008 the Kurzeme Regional Court (Kurzemes apgabaltiesa) upheld the judgment of the Ventspils Court. On 7 January 2008, following an appeal on points of law, the Criminal Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departaments) upheld the applicant’s conviction, but remitted the judgment with regard to the final sentence that was determined for the applicant’s two convictions. 5. On 27 March 2008 the Kurzeme Regional Court set the final sentence for the applicant’s two convictions at two years and eight months’ imprisonment. The Criminal Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court upheld this judgment with a final decision of 6 May 2008. 6. The applicant was arrested on 3 December 2006 at 0.30 a.m. At the time of the arrest the applicant was driving a car and was wearing no shoes, only woollen socks. The applicant submits that at the time of the arrest he had asked the police officers to take him home to pick up some shoes; this request was, however, rejected. 7. The protocol of detention states that the applicant was arrested at the time of commission of the crime. In its judgment of 13 July 2007 the Ventpils Court established that after having realised that his co-accused had been arrested the applicant had attempted to dispose of his boots, which were subsequently found in the forest. 8. During the trial hearing before the Ventspils Court that took place on 5 July 2007 police officer A.K. and investigator K.G. testified that A.K. had offered the applicant the shoes that had been available at the police office, and that the applicant had refused them. In his application to this Court the applicant denied that he had been offered any shoes. Furthermore, A.K. testified, and the applicant confirmed, that the applicant’s wife had been telephoned and invited to bring the applicant shoes. However, the Court has no information who provided the applicant with shoes and when this happened. 9. Section 6(3) of the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office (Prokuratūras likums), providing for an appeal against action taken by a prosecutor, was cited in Leja v. Latvia (no. 71072/01, § 34, 14 June 2011). 10. Regulation no. 827 (2005) of the Cabinet of Ministers, effective since 5 November 2005, provides that the Head of the Prisons Administration decides on legal challenges brought by private individuals against “administrative acts” issued by or “actions of a public authority” taken by its subordinate officers, unless otherwise prescribed by law (paragraph 6 and 13). The decision of the Head of the Prisons Administration can be brought to court (para 13). 11. The Administrative Procedure Law (Administratīvā procesa likums) that took effect on 1 February 2004 provides, among other things, for the right to challenge administrative acts and actions of public authorities before the administrative courts. The relevant provisions of that Law were summarised in the case of Melnītis v. Latvia (no. 30779/05, §§ 24-26, 28 February 2012). 12. Section 11 of the Law on Restrictions regarding the Sale, Advertising and Use of Tobacco Products (Likums “Par tabakas izstrādājumu realizācijas, reklāmas un lietošanas ierobežošanu”), effective since 21 January 1997, sets out the restrictions on smoking. In particular, section 11(1)(2) prohibits smoking in detention facilities, apart from in premises specially set aside for that purpose. Section 11(1)(2) adds that the internal rules of the relevant establishment may provide for the possibility of smoking outside such premises, having due regard to the physical and mental health of the inmates 13. Regulation no. 358 (1999) of the Cabinet of Ministers governed the medical care of convicts in penal institutions until 28 March 2007. On the said date it was replaced with Regulation no. 199 (2007) of the Cabinet of Ministers, which was in force until 23 January 2014. The relevant provisions of both Regulations were cited in the case of Fedosejevs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 37546/06, §§ 33-34, 19 November 2013). 14. Section 10 of the Medical Treatment Law (Ārstniecības likums), as in force until 5 October 2007, provided that the Inspectorate of Quality Control for Medical Care and Working Capability (“the MADEKKI”) was responsible for monitoring the professional quality of medical care in health-care establishments. Following the reorganisation of the MADEKKI, from 5 October 2007 onwards, that task was entrusted to the Health Inspectorate. The competence of these institutions and the domestic case-law with regard to the supervision of medical care in prisons is outlined in the case of Antonovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 19437/05, §§ 63-65, 71-79, 11 February 2014). 15. Finally, section 138 (1) of the Criminal Law (Krimināllikums) provides that in cases of inadequate performance of professional duties by a medical professional resulting in serious or moderate bodily injury, such professional may be held criminally responsible. Criminal responsibility for inadequate performance of professional duties by a medical professional resulting in infection with the hepatitis B or C viruses was established by means of amendments to section 138 (2) of the Criminal Law, coming into force on 1 July 2009. Criminal responsibility for wilful infection with the hepatitis B or C viruses was established by way of amendments to section 133 of the Criminal Law effective from 1 July 2009.