PANCERS v. LATVIA
Inadmissible
George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä
1. The applicant, Mr Viktors Pancers, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Riga. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Vidžups, a lawyer practising in Riga. 2. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 23 August 2002 the Rīga City Vidzeme District Court authorised the applicant’s detention on remand. The term of the applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions. 5. On 20 September 2002 the applicant was officially charged with large scale fraud and bribery. The charges against the applicant were subsequently amended on several occasions. 6. The bill of indictment was finalised on 12 March 2004 and the case was transferred for adjudication to the Rīga Regional Court. On the same day the public prosecutor in charge of the criminal case against the applicant informed the director of Matīsa prison that the term of the applicant’s detention had been prolonged. The hearings in the first-instance court took place between 10 January and 1 August 2005. 7. On 1 August 2005 the Rīga Regional Court adopted judgment in the criminal case against the applicant and eight other defendants. The applicant was convicted of several crimes: repeated bribery; abuse of an official position; acquisition, possession and sale of cocaine; money laundering and repeated fraud. He was acquitted of the charges of incitement to bribery, illegal acquisition and sale of a firearm as well as falsification of a criminal case against a third person. 8. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment of six years and one month. The court also indicated that the applicant was to be continued to be held in detention. 9. The applicant and two of his co-defendants appealed. 10. The Supreme Court started the appeal hearings on 23 May 2006. Hearings continued for three days, after which the presiding judge postponed the continuation of the trial until 30 June 2006. 11. On 30 June 2006 the Supreme Court, acting as an appeal court, adopted a decision by which it quashed the first-instance court’s judgment in its entirety and remitted the case to the first-instance court. The appeal court considered that the first-instance court’s judgment had not been adequately motivated and had furthermore relied on evidence which had not been presented during the hearing. The court also ruled on the applicant’s detention on remand and found it necessary to prolong the term of the applicant’s detention for three further months. The operative part of the decision of the appeal court indicated that the term of the applicant’s detention on remand was to be prolonged by three months “starting from the date of entry into force of the decision”. 12. On 2 July 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint on points of law about his continued detention with the Supreme Court. On 17 August 2006 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that his appeal had been received on 7 July 2006. 13. On 27 August 2006 the applicant submitted an additional appeal on points of law against the Supreme Court’s decision to retain him in detention. 14. On 7 November 2006 the Senate of the Supreme Court, after having examined the appeals on points of law submitted by the applicant and codefendants, and an opinion of the prosecutor, quashed the appeal court’s decision of 30 June 2006 in full and remitted the case to the appeal court. The Senate pointed out that upon identifying procedural flaws in the firstinstance court’s judgment the appeal court itself had a duty to examine the case on the merits and adopt a new judgment. 15. On 23 October 2007 the Supreme Court started hearings concerning the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the firstinstance court. The appeal court refused to order the applicant’s release from detention, arguing that his detention had been ordered by the verdict of the firstinstance court. 16. On 22 September 2008 the applicant was released from prison after having completed his sentence. 17. On 27 February 2009 the Supreme Court adopted a judgment. It upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court in full save for one episode of fraud, of which the applicant was acquitted. The applicant’s final sentence remained unchanged. 18. In a final decision of 28 October 2009 the Senate of the Supreme Court rejected the appeals on points of law that had been lodged by the prosecutor, the applicant and two of the applicant’s co-defendants. The applicant had disputed the interpretation of evidence by the appeal court and the fairness of his conviction in general. 19. Section 570 of the Law of Criminal Procedure (in force from 1 October 2005 and at the material time) provides that: (1) A cassation complaint or protest shall be lodged not later than within l0 days after the day when a court’s judgment or decision becomes available. ... (4) An appeal or protest submitted pursuant to the procedure specified in paragraph 1 of this Article shall suspend the execution of a judgment or the entry into force of a decision." 20. The relevant legal provisions and the domestic case-law in relation to the right to completion of the criminal proceedings within a “reasonable time” have been summarised in the case Trūps v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, 20 November 2012.