ZIKOVS v. LATVIA
Inadmissible
George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev
1. The applicant, Mr Nikolajs Zikovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1983 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Riga Central Prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Sruoģis, a lawyer practising in Riga. 2. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs K. Līce. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 19 February 2011 the applicant went to the cinema. He got into an argument with another man. A fight ensued and the applicant fired several shots, killing the other man. The police arrived immediately and took the applicant into custody. 5. On 21 February 2011 a judge remanded him in custody. 6. On 24 February 2011 a search of the applicant’s car was conducted by the State Police without a judge’s authorisation. Several objects and documents were seized: a laptop, a thesis written by the applicant, sporting equipment, and several objects the applicant described as being of an intimate nature. 7. On 18 May 2011 the applicant was charged with aggravated murder. 8. On 26 October 2011 the prosecution announced the end of the pre-trial investigation and decided to transfer the case to court (lēmums par kriminālprocesa nodošanu tiesai). The case file was sent to the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa). 9. On 22 May 2012 the Riga Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment, three years’ police supervision, and confiscation of property. 10. On 31 May 2013 the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. However, upon repeated requests by the applicant, the following objects and documents were excluded from the evidence relied on by the first-instance court for the purposes of the applicant’s conviction: the record of the inspection of the applicant’s car (automašīnas apskates protokols), the objects and documents seized therein (apskates laikā izņemtie priekšmeti un dokumenti), and their inspection record (mantu apskates protokols). The Criminal Cases Chamber relied on sections 159 (1) and (2), 160 (3), 179 (1) and 180 of the Criminal Procedure Law and found that, in actual fact, during the inspection of the applicant’s car a search, not a (visual) inspection, had been carried out, in breach of the relevant domestic provisions pertaining to inspections. Moreover, the search of the applicant’s car was carried out in breach of section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Law pertaining to searches. The evidence obtained therefrom was accordingly declared inadmissible. 11. On 20 September 2013 the applicant asked the prosecuting authorities to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who were involved in the search of his car. He did not ask that the unlawfully seized material be returned to him, but he relied on Article 8 of the Convention and Article 96 of the Constitution. His complaint was forwarded to the Internal Security Bureau of the State Police (Valsts policijas Iekšējās drošības birojs) and he was informed about it. 12. On 2 October 2013 the Internal Security Bureau replied that no ancillary decision under the section 533 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law had been made by the court. Accordingly, the State Police had no legal grounds to examine investigative activities undertaken by its officers during the pre-trial investigation. The applicant was informed that he could enquire with the Chairperson of the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court. The applicant did not do so. 13. On 22 November 2013 the Senate of the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling of 31 May 2013 and adopted a final decision in the applicant’s criminal case. 14. Article 92 provides, inter alia, that “everyone whose rights are violated without justification has a right to commensurate compensation”. 15. Article 96 guarantees “inviolability of private life, home and correspondence”. 16. However, Article 116 permits restrictions on the exercise of rights set out in, inter alia, Article 96 in circumstances provided for by law in order to “protect the rights of other persons, the democratic structure of the State, public safety, welfare and morals”. 17. Section 1635 defines a delict as any wrongful act as a result of which damage (which may include non-pecuniary damage) has been caused to a third person. The person who has suffered the damage has the right to claim satisfaction from the person who caused it. 18. Section 1779 provides that everyone is under an obligation to make good damage caused by his or her act or failure to act. 19. These provisions as well as sections 2347-2351 relating to compensation for bodily injury (before and after the amendments that were effective from 1 March 2006) are quoted in full in Zavoloka v. Latvia (no. 58447/00, § 19, 7 July 2009). 20. The relevant provision relating to searches can be found in Nagla v. Latvia (no. 73469/10, § 36, 16 July 2013). 21. In addition, section 533 (1) provides that a court may adopt an ancillary decision by which violations of law are notified to the competent authority or official and they are requested to remedy the situation.