CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 novembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s75397A2C { font-family:Arial; color:#202122 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sA4D66361 { font-family:Arial; color:#0070c0 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1791F5C1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s6D9D27E6 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#414142 } .sA034F24A { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DD02986 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB9541D82 { font-family:Arial; color:#212121 } .sB08485A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#212121 } .s2AC22BCF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#212121 } .s6430D388 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s35008A5F { width:18.55pt; display:inline-block } .s90B2F37D { width:135.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RIMŠĒVIČS v. LATVIA (Application no. 56425/18)       JUDGMENT   Art 5 § 1 • Lawful arrest and forty-six-hour detention of the then Governor of Latvia’s Central Bank in connection with criminal proceeding against him • Existence of reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence • No arbitrariness   STRASBOURG 10 November 2022   FINAL   03/04/2023     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Rimšēvičs v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary , President,   Mārtiņš Mits ,   Lətif Hüseynov ,   Lado Chanturia ,   Ivana Jelić ,   Arnfinn Bårdsen ,   Mattias Guyomar , judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   56425/18) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Latvian national, Mr Ilmārs Rimšēvičs (“the applicant”), on 28 November 2018; the decision to give notice to the Latvian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 6 and 27 September 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case mainly concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article   5 §   1 of the Convention about the lawfulness of his arrest ( aizturēšana ) from 17 to 19 February 2018 in connection with criminal proceedings against him. The case also concerns complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention about not being promptly brought before a judge and not being able to obtain a judicial review of his arrest. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Ropaži Municipality . He was represented by Mr S. Vārpiņš, a lawyer practising in Riga. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 5.     The applicant held the post of Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia ( Latvijas Banka ) at the material time. He became a member of the General Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) following the accession of the Republic of Latvia to the European Union (EU) on 1 May 2004, then a member of the Governing Council of the ECB following the accession of the Republic of Latvia to the euro area on 1 January 2014. His term of office as Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia expired on 20 December 2019. 6.     Trust Commercial Bank ( Trasta komercbanka – “the Bank”) was a private credit institution providing financial services. On   3   March 2016, upon a proposal from the financial market supervising authority in Latvia, the Financial and Capital Market Commission ( Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija – “the FKTK”), the ECB withdrew its banking licence over concerns regarding capital adequacy and shortcomings in the Bank’s operations regarding the prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing. The Bank and its shareholders, including I.B. (see paragraph 9 below), brought an action for annulment of that decision. On 5 November 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (joined cases C‑663/17 P, C‑665/17 P and C‑669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923) dismissed the action brought by the shareholders, but at the same time referred the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the action brought by the Bank. On 17   November 2021 the General Court (case T-247/16 RENV) held that the Bank had lost its interest in seeking annulment as the impugned decision had been set aside and revoked by a subsequent decision in July 2016. The Bank is currently subject to liquidation proceedings in Latvia. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT 7 .     On 15 February 2018 the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption ( Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs – “the KNAB”) instituted proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of bribery in relation to events that had taken place in 2013-14. He was suspected of having taken a bribe of around 100,000 euros (EUR) from V.Z., a member of the Bank’s management board, in exchange for “not creating obstacles to the Bank’s activities”. The decision to institute proceedings referred to two written statements received by the KNAB on the same date. The Government provided copies of those two written statements to the Court. 8 .     In his written statement, V.Z. submitted that the applicant had solicited a bribe in exchange for “helping to resolve the Bank’s problems with the FKTK”. He stated that the FKTK had requested that the Bank’s capital be increased but the shareholders had been unable to do so. They had had no other option than to give bribes. On two occasions between 2013 and 2014, he claimed to have paid approximately EUR 50,000 in cash to the applicant. 9 .     In his written statement, I.B., one of the Bank’s main shareholders and the president of its supervisory board, submitted that sometime between 2009 and 2010 he had gone on a fishing trip with the applicant to the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia. I.B. had paid for tickets, accommodation and other expenses in the amount of 10,000-15,000 US dollars using personal funds. He had done so in exchange for “services, support in working with the FKTK”. In 2010 he had introduced V.Z. to the applicant at the former’s request. 10 .     On the evening of 16 February 2018, the applicant’s office and home were searched while he was abroad. KNAB officials called to inform him that his house was being searched and requested access codes to two personal safety deposit boxes found in his home, which he provided. The investigator, A.R., informed him that he had to appear before the KNAB, and he made the necessary arrangements to travel back to Latvia. 11 .     On 17 February 2018 the applicant arrived in Latvia and voluntarily presented himself at the KNAB’s offices with a lawyer. According to the applicant, he immediately stated that he was ready to cooperate with the investigation, provide all necessary information and participate in all investigative activities. Nonetheless, at 6.14 p.m. he was arrested. He was suspected of having taken a bribe with the help of businessman M.M. (who had been arrested the previous day) sometime between 2013 and 2014 from the Bank’s board member V.Z., in exchange for “not creating obstacles to the Bank’s activities”. Between 6.16 and 6.59 p.m. the investigator drew up an arrest record ( aizturēšanas protokols ) specifying that a witness had identified him as the perpetrator. She relied on section 264(1)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law as the legal basis for the applicant’s arrest (see paragraph 29 below). The applicant signed the record, but stated that his arrest was unjustified. He relied on Article   5 of the Convention and requested to be immediately brought before an investigating judge to examine the justification for his arrest ( aizturēšanas pamatotība ). 12 .     The applicant was questioned and involved in other investigative activities from 6.16   p.m. until 10   a.m. the following day. He denied the allegations against him. The Government provided the relevant procedural records to the Court. 13 .     At 10 a.m. on 18 February 2018 the applicant was placed in a short ‑ term detention facility. He remained there for a further thirty hours. According to the applicant, during those thirty hours no further investigative activities were carried out in his presence. According to the Government, during this period the KNAB questioned three more witnesses, authorised the police to involve the applicant in investigative activities in other proceedings and prepared decisions to impose attachments on assets owned by him. They informed an investigating judge of further searches to be conducted under the urgent procedure, including a search of the applicant’s car. They also examined further evidence and questioned V.Z. about certain audio recordings made in April and May 2013. The content of those recordings was not disclosed to the Court. 14 .     At 12 noon on 19 February 2018 the applicant’s lawyer requested that the applicant be released on bail in the amount of EUR 100,000. According to the Government, the investigator granted that request. At 1   p.m. the applicant’s lawyer submitted proof of payment by a third party. According to the Government, from about 2.30 to 4.30 p.m. two further witnesses were questioned and evidence was examined. 15.     At 4.50 p.m. on 19 February 2018 the applicant was released from the short-term detention facility and escorted to the KNAB’s offices. 16 .     At 5.51 p.m. the same day the KNAB issued a decision officially declaring the applicant a suspect in the criminal proceedings. On the same date, the KNAB imposed several restrictive measures on him: a ban on holding office as Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia; an obligation to pay bail of EUR   100,000; a ban on leaving the country without prior authorisation; and a ban on approaching certain individuals, including M.M., V.Z. and I.B. The ban on holding office was subsequently overturned by the CJEU (see paragraph 26 below). REVIEW OF THE APPLICANT’S COMPLAINTS 17 .     In reply to the applicant’s complaint (see paragraph 11 in fine above), on 21   February 2018 the investigator issued a decision. She considered that the applicant’s request to be brought before an investigating judge was not justified. The Criminal Procedure Law did not provide for such a possibility (see, by contrast, paragraph 21 below). At the same time, she explained that the applicant could lodge a complaint with a supervising prosecutor against her decision (and about any action taken by the investigator) within ten days of its receipt. He received the decision on 26   February 2018 (see paragraph 20 below) but did not lodge a complaint. 18.     On 22 February 2018 the applicant lodged another complaint with the supervising prosecutor challenging the lawfulness of his arrest. 19.     On 13 March 2018 the supervising prosecutor examined and dismissed the applicant’s complaint. Having reviewed the evidence which had served as the grounds for his arrest, she concluded that the conditions for his arrest under section 264(1)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law had been fulfilled. Thus, the restrictive measure imposed on him had been proportionate, and sections 241 and 244 of the Criminal Procedure Law had not been breached. In reaching this conclusion, she took into account the statements made by the applicant upon his arrival at the KNAB’s offices (see paragraph 11 above). The domestic forty-eight-hour time-limit for arrest had not been breached either. Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention had been complied with as he had been released. Article 5 § 4 was only applicable in domestic review proceedings before a court. Moreover, she noted that the applicant had not lodged a complaint against the 21 February 2018 decision (see paragraph 17 above). 20 .     On 23 March 2018 the applicant lodged a further complaint with a superior prosecutor about the 13 March 2018 reply, explaining that he had only received the 21 February 2018 decision on 26 February 2018, that is, after lodging the complaint challenging the lawfulness of his arrest. He emphasised that his rights had been breached on account of the fact that he had not been brought before an investigating judge to examine the lawfulness of his arrest. 21 .     On 23 April 2018 the superior prosecutor examined and dismissed the applicant’s complaint. Deprivation of liberty on the grounds of section 264(1)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law was not limited to investigations in connection with “recent” offences (unlike section 264(1)(1) of the same Law). He dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that his arrest had been orchestrated in order to publicly demand his resignation, stating that the investigator was not bound and could not be influenced by any statements made by public officials. He explained that a suspect only had to be brought before an investigating judge within forty-eight hours of his arrest if further deprivation of liberty was to be applied. In compliance with section 268(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law, the applicant had been declared a suspect and released. There had been no breach of Article 5 of the Convention since he had been released. Without indicating any legal grounds, he asserted that since the applicant had been released, he had the possibility of lodging a complaint himself with the investigating judge (see, by contrast, paragraph 17 above). Lastly, he dismissed the applicant’s arguments pertaining to the immunity of a member of the Governing Council of the ECB, stating that he was not suspected of having carried out the alleged offence in the performance of his duties. 22 .     By a final decision of 28 May 2018, another superior prosecutor upheld the prosecution’s previous replies and dismissed a further complaint by the applicant of 7 May 2018, where he repeatedly relied on the fact that he had not been brought before a judge. In addition, the prosecutor emphasised that section 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law required grounds to believe that the person would continue criminal activities, or hinder or avoid investigation and trial. It was not necessary for the applicant to have had already hindered or avoided such proceedings and trial. At the time the applicant was arrested, such a possibility existed; it continued to exist, as evidenced by the fact that on 19 February 2018 several restrictive measures had been imposed on him. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS Domestic proceedings 23.     On 18 June 2018 the KNAB referred the criminal case for prosecution. On 28 June 2018 the prosecution brought charges against the applicant and M.M. On 9 July 2019 the criminal case was sent to a first-instance court for trial. 24 .     Following a request by the first-instance court for a preliminary ruling of the CJEU on issues relating to the immunity from legal proceedings of the governor of a central bank of a Member State (see paragraph 27 below), the applicant’s trial was suspended in December 2019. The applicant’s trial resumed on receipt of the CJEU’s preliminary ruling. A copy of any court decision in that regard has not been submitted to the Court. 25.     The case is currently pending before the first-instance court. Proceedings before the CJEU 26 .     On 26 February 2019 the CJEU, ruling on direct actions brought by the applicant and the ECB (joined cases C‑202/18 and C‑238/18, EU:C:2019:139), annulled the 19 February 2018 decision (see paragraph 16 above) in so far as it had banned the applicant from performing his duties as Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia (paragraph 97 of the CJEU’s judgment). The State argued that the evidence in the applicant’s criminal case file was covered by the confidentiality of the investigation pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law (paragraph 87). The CJEU held as follows: “90.     In the present case, the prohibition on Mr Rimšēvičs performing his duties as Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia is for the purposes of a criminal investigation relating to that person’s alleged conduct, which is considered criminal and which, were it to be established, would constitute ‘serious misconduct’ for the purposes of Article 14.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB. 91.     It should be specified at the outset that it is not for the Court, when an action is brought before it on the basis of Article 14.2 of that statute, to take the place of the national courts having jurisdiction to give a ruling on the criminal liability of the governor involved, nor even to interfere with the preliminary criminal investigation being conducted in respect of that person by the competent administrative or judicial authorities under the law of the Member State concerned. For the purposes of such an investigation, and in particular in order to prevent the governor concerned from obstructing that investigation, it may be necessary to decide to suspend that person temporarily from office. 92.     By contrast, it is for the Court, in the context of the powers conferred on it by the second subparagraph of Article 14.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB, to verify that a temporary prohibition on the governor concerned performing his duties is taken only if there are sufficient indications that he has engaged in serious misconduct capable of justifying such a measure. 93.     In the present case, the person concerned maintains before the Court that he has not committed any of the offences of which he is accused. Like the ECB, he considers that the Republic of Latvia has not adduced the slightest evidence of those offences. In fact, in the written procedure before the Court, the Republic of Latvia did not provide any prima facie evidence of the accusations of bribery which were the basis for the opening of the investigation and the adoption of the decision at issue. 94.     At the hearing, the President of the Court requested the representatives of the Republic of Latvia, who undertook to do so, to communicate to the Court, within a short period, the documents supporting the decision at issue. However, as the Advocate General noted in points 125 to 130 of her Opinion, none of the documents produced by the Republic of Latvia following the hearing contain any evidence capable of establishing the existence of sufficient indications as regards whether the accusations made against the person concerned are well founded. 95.     By letter received at the Court Registry on 8 January 2019, the Republic of Latvia offered to communicate other documents ‘within a reasonable time’, without requesting that the oral part of the procedure, which had been declared closed following the delivery of the Advocate General’s Opinion pursuant to Article 82(2) of the Rules of Procedure, be reopened. By a second letter of 30 January 2019 the Republic of Latvia renewed its offer of evidence and requested that the oral part of the procedure be reopened. However, that offer of evidence, received at the Court at the stage when the case was under deliberation, is not accompanied by any statement of reasons explaining the delay in submitting those documents as is required by Article 128(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The developments in the criminal investigation as described by the Latvian Government are not relevant in that regard. In addition, that offer of evidence does not contain any concrete and specific indication regarding the content of the documents whose disclosure is offered. In those circumstances and having regard to the expedited nature of the proceedings, the offer of evidence and the request that the oral part of the procedure be reopened must be rejected. 96.     Consequently, the Court must hold that the Republic of Latvia has not established that the relieving of Mr Rimšēvičs from office is based on the existence of sufficient indications that he has engaged in serious misconduct for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 14.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB and, accordingly, upholds the plea alleging that that decision is unjustified. It is therefore unnecessary to examine the other pleas in the application. 97.     It follows from the foregoing that the decision at issue must be annulled in so far as it prohibits Mr Rimšēvičs from performing his duties as Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia.” 27 .     On 30 November 2021 the CJEU, in a preliminary ruling following a request from the first-instance court (case C-3/20, EU:C:2021:969) (see paragraph 24 above), held as follows (references omitted): “ The fourth question ... 56.     It should be noted at the outset that Article 11(a) of the Protocol on privileges and immunities provides that officials and other servants of the European Union enjoy immunity from legal proceedings only in respect of acts performed ‘in an official capacity’, that is to say, within the framework of the task entrusted to the European Union ... 57.     In addition, the privileges and immunities which the Protocol grants to the European Union have a purely functional character, inasmuch as they are intended to avoid any interference with the functioning and independence of the European Union, which entails, in particular, that the privileges, immunities and facilities accorded to officials and other servants of the European Union are done so solely in the interests of the latter ... ... 68.     Secondly, it is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities that the sole purpose of immunity from legal proceedings is, by avoiding any interference with the functioning and independence of the European Union ..., to ensure the protection of the interests of the European Union and it cannot therefore impede the exercise by the Member States of their competence to punish criminal offences where those interests are not at stake. 69.     The exercise of that competence would be hindered, or at least systematically delayed, if the national authority responsible for the criminal proceedings were, in all cases, required to request the EU institution concerned to waive immunity as soon as a criminal prosecution is initiated against one of the officials or other servants of that institution. 70.     Consequently, that national authority must be able to find that the offence committed by an official or other servant of the European Union was manifestly not committed by him or her in the performance of his or her duties. ... 77. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the fourth question is that Article 11(a) of the Protocol on privileges and immunities, read in conjunction with Articles 17 and 22 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that the national authority responsible for the criminal proceedings, that is to say, depending on the stage of the proceedings, the authority responsible for criminal prosecutions or the competent criminal court, has the competence to assess, in the first place, whether the offence potentially committed by the governor of a national central bank, in his or her capacity as a member of an organ of the ECB, is an act of that governor carried out in the performance of his or her duties within that organ, but in the event of doubt it is required, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, to request the ECB’s opinion and to comply with the latter. Conversely, it is for the ECB alone to assess, when it receives an application for waiver of that governor’s immunity, whether such a waiver of immunity is contrary to the interests of the European Union, subject to the potential review of that assessment by the Court of Justice. The third question ... 85.     Furthermore, too broad an interpretation of immunity from legal proceedings, including the police and judicial investigation and preliminary criminal proceedings, would be liable to render EU officials and other servants virtually exempt from criminal liability and to excessively hinder the exercise of criminal justice in the Member State concerned where one of them is implicated, which would be contrary to the values, set out in Article 2 TEU, to which the authors of the Treaties subscribed, in particular the rule of law. In that regard, there is, in particular, no justification for the authority responsible for the criminal proceedings not to be able to serve on him or her an indictment. 86.     It follows from the foregoing that the immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of the Protocol on privileges and immunities does not preclude the criminal prosecution in its entirety, in particular investigative measures, the gathering of evidence and service of the indictment. 87.     Nevertheless, if, at the stage of the investigations conducted by the national authorities and before the matter is brought before a court, it is established that the official or servant of the European Union may enjoy immunity from legal proceedings in respect of the acts which are the subject of the criminal prosecution, it is for those authorities, in accordance with Article 4(3) TEU and Article 18 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities, to request a waiver of immunity from the EU institution concerned, which is then required to act, in particular, in accordance with the approach set out ... above. 88.     As regards the question whether immunity from legal proceedings precludes the subsequent use of evidence gathered during the investigation, it follows from the foregoing that that immunity does not have such a scope. It merely precludes any use of evidence obtained for the purposes of trying and convicting the official or servant of the European Union in question for the act covered by that immunity. On the other hand, since that immunity is enjoyed by the official or servant of the European Union concerned only in respect of a particular act, it does not preclude that evidence from being used in other proceedings concerning other acts not covered by immunity or directed against third parties. 89.     For the same reasons as those referred to ... above, the interpretation set out ... above is also relevant to the assessment of the immunity from legal proceedings of a governor of a central bank of a Member State, in his or her capacity as a member of an organ of the ECB. 90.     In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question is that Article 11(a) of the Protocol on privileges and immunities must be interpreted as meaning that the immunity from legal proceedings for which it provides does not preclude the criminal prosecution in its entirety, including investigative measures, the gathering of evidence and service of the indictment. Nevertheless, if, at the stage of the investigations conducted by the national authorities and before the court is seised, it is established that the person under investigation may enjoy immunity from legal proceedings in respect of the acts which are the subject of the criminal prosecution, it is for those authorities to request a waiver of immunity from the EU institution concerned. That immunity does not preclude evidence gathered during the investigation from being used in other judicial proceedings. The fifth question ... 97.     In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the fifth question is that Article 11(a) and Article 17 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities must be interpreted as meaning that immunity from legal proceedings does not apply where the beneficiary of that immunity is implicated in criminal proceedings in respect of acts which were not performed in the context of the duties which he or she carries out on behalf of an EU institution.” Proceedings before the Court 28 .     In addition to the present application, the applicant also lodged an application about statements made after his arrest by public officials (no.   31634/18), which is currently pending. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 29 .     The relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Law ( Kriminālprocesa likums ) provide as follows: CHAPTER 13 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF RESTRICTIVE MEASURES Section 241 – Grounds for the application of a procedural restrictive measure “(1)     Grounds for the application of a procedural restrictive measure shall be the resistance of a person to achieving the objective of criminal proceedings in the specific proceedings or to carrying out a separate procedural action, or failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment of his or her procedural duties. (2)     A security measure shall be applied as a procedural restrictive measure to a suspect or an accused if there are grounds to believe that the relevant person will continue criminal activities, or hinder pre-trial criminal proceedings and trial or avoid such proceedings and trial. ...” Section 244 – Selection of procedural restrictive measures “(1)     The person conducting the proceedings shall choose a procedural restrictive measure that infringes upon the basic rights of a person as little as possible and is proportionate. (2)     In selecting a security measure, the person conducting the proceedings shall take into account the nature and harmfulness of the criminal offence, the character of the suspect or accused, his or her family situation, health and other circumstances. ...” CHAPTER 15 RESTRICTIVE MEASURES RELATED TO THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY Section 263 – Arrest “Arrest ( a izturēšana ) is the deprivation of the liberty of a person for a period of up to 48 hours without a decision by an investigating judge, if grounds for arrest exist.” Section 264 – Grounds for arrest “(1)     A person may only be arrested if there are reasons to believe that a criminal offence has been committed for which a punishment of deprivation of liberty may be imposed, and if any of the following grounds exist: 1)     the person has been caught either at the moment of committing of a criminal offence, immediately thereafter, or while escaping from the location where the criminal offence was committed; 2)     the person has been indicated as the perpetrator of a criminal offence by a victim or another person who saw the event or directly acquired such information in another manner; ...” Section 268 – Time-limit for arrest “(1)     The person conducting the proceedings shall without delay, but no later than within 48 hours, decide [whether or not] to declare the arrested person a suspect or an accused and to impose a restrictive measure. (2)     After the arrested person has been declared a suspect or an accused and his or her questioning, if necessary, the person conducting the proceedings shall without delay decide to release the person from a short-term detention facility if a restrictive measure has been applied which is not related to the deprivation of liberty. (3)     If the arrested person has been declared a suspect or an accused and, if necessary, questioned, but the restrictive measure selected by the person conducting the proceedings is related to the deprivation of liberty, the person may be placed in a short ‑ term detention facility until he or she is brought before an investigating judge, taking into account that the 48-hour time-limit runs from the time of actual arrest.” CHAPTER 24 COMPLAINTS Section 337 – Lodging of a complaint [as in force at the material time] “(1)     A complaint shall be addressed to and lodged with an official or institution that is entitled to decide on it. A complaint may also be submitted to an official whose action or decision is being contested. (2)     A complaint shall be forwarded for examination [to]: 1)     the person conducting the criminal proceedings in respect of a complaint about an action by a member of an investigation team, [a person who has performed] a procedural task, an expert or an auditor; 2)     the supervising prosecutor in respect of a complaint about an action or decision by an investigator or his or her immediate superior; 3)     a higher-ranking prosecutor in respect of a complaint about an action or decision by a prosecutor; 4)     a higher-level court in respect of a complaint about a decision by an investigating judge; 5)     the president of the court in respect of a complaint about an action by a judge; 6)     a higher-level court in respect of a complaint about a ruling by a court or judge. (3)     If a person who has lodged a complaint in respect of a complaint about an action or decision referred to in [section 337(2)(1) to (3)] disagrees with a decision taken by a higher-ranking prosecutor in that regard, he or she may lodge a further complaint with the next higher-ranking prosecutor, whose decision shall be final in the pre-trial criminal proceedings. ... (5)     A person who has received a complaint in respect of his or her action or decision shall immediately forward that complaint to the official referred to in [section 337(2)]. If [that official] considers the complaint justified, [he or she] shall discontinue the contested action or revoke the contested decision and [at the same time] shall declare the results thereof invalid. ...” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 30.     The applicant complained that his arrest on 17 February 2018 had not been in accordance with the law. He also alleged that his detention from 10   a.m. on 18   February 2018 onwards had been arbitrary and unnecessary. He relied on Article   5   § 1 (c) of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ...” 31.     The Government contested that argument. Admissibility 32 .     The Court notes that the Government have not raised any objections as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Furthermore, this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. This complaint is not inadmissible on any other grounds either. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions (a)    The applicant 33 .     The applicant contended that his arrest on 17 February 2018 had been unlawful, arbitrary and unnecessary. He argued that section 264(1)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law should not have been applied in respect of him. Since he had cooperated with the investigation (see paragraphs 11-12 above), there had been no grounds to impose any restrictive measures on him. Section   241(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law only authorised restrictive measures on the grounds of resistance, obstruction or failure to cooperate. However, the domestic authorities did not apply this legal provision in practice when imposing restrictive measures related to the deprivation of liberty. Instead, they exclusively relied on the grounds laid down in section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Moreover, he disagreed that section 264(1)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law could be used to authorise an arrest on the basis of witness statements about events in the past. Relying on the historical method of interpretation and the former Code of Criminal Procedure, he argued that this provision was only applicable when the alleged criminal offence was “recent” and when it was necessary to act “without delay”. 34 .     The applicant submitted that the reasons given by the KNAB for his arrest had been extremely brief. He also contended that his arrest had been based merely on an “assumption” rather than a “reasonable suspicion”. 35.     According to the applicant, his arguments pertaining to potential immunity of a member of the Governing Council of the ECB had not been assessed by the KNAB upon his arrest (see the CJEU’s preliminary ruling on this issue, paragraph 27 above). 36 .     The applicant emphasised that his arrest had not been made on the basis of a judicial warrant. If a person was arrested for up to forty-eight hours, the decision was made by an investigator and not subject to judicial review. He contended that that interpretation of the domestic law had been confirmed by the prosecution (see paragraphs 17-22 above). The lack of judicial review and shortcomings in legal regulation contributed to arbitrariness and elements of bad faith on the part of the law-enforcement authorities since they used criminal-law mechanisms to settle political issues. This was particularly so in high-profile cases where a person was arrested for forty-eight hours without a judicial warrant and subsequently released. Extensive media coverage would follow during the investigation and potentially lengthy trial, with the person concerned being depicted as a “person accused of a serious criminal offence”, thereby tarnishing his or her reputation and removing him or her from the public arena. The applicant pointed to certain elements which, in his view, suggested that his arrest could have been orchestrated in the interests of “other persons”: his position that the Latvian banking system needed changes; the particular situation with respect to another bank; the upcoming parliamentary elections; and the redistribution of political influence, including posts held by high-ranking officials. 37 .     His detention after 10 a.m. on 18   February 2018 had been arbitrary and unnecessary since he had no longer been involved in any investigative activities. Moreover, the KNAB had had sufficient information to declare him a suspect and release him earlier as the procedural records had already contained “suspicions” against him (see paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 above). If the KNAB had considered that his liberty had to be restricted during the investigation, they could have already released him on 18   February 2018 and imposed less severe restrictive measures (for example, house arrest, ban on approaching certain people and so forth). The applicant emphasised that the KNAB had not considered any alternative measures for his detention or identified any public interest that would be upset by his release. Given that the KNAB had informed the media and general public of the searches of his home and office, they could not cite the need to restrict information about an ongoing investigation. 38 .     The applicant disagreed with the Government’s contention that his case had been significant (see paragraph 44 in fine below). He contended that it had been ordinary compared to other cases investigated by the KNAB. If the work had been properly organised, the number of officials assigned to the case in the early days of the investigation (six investigators from the KNAB, three economic crime officers and various experts) would have been sufficient to carry out the necessary activities and process the information obtained in a timely manner. (b)    The Government 39.     As to lawfulness,   the Government submitted that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty had been in conformity with the substantive and procedural rules of domestic law. The domestic authorities had been able to furnish sufficient facts and information to satisfy “the objective observer” test (they relied on O’Hara v. the United Kingdom , no.   37555/97, §§ 34-35, ECHR 2001-X). 40 .     As to the procedure laid down by law, the prosecution had explained the relevant provisions of domestic law in its replies. While section 241 of the Criminal Procedure Law contained grounds for the application of all restrictive measures, section 264 was lex specialis as regards the application of restrictive measures related to the deprivation of liberty. The latter provision contained an exhaustive list of the grounds for arrest, including the existence of a suspicion against a particular person on the basis of a statement by a victim or witness. Since the case file contained the statements of two witnesses, the Government, like the prosecutors, were of the view that the conditions provided for in section 264(1)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law had been fulfilled. 41 .     The Government disagreed that section 264(1)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law could only be applied in respect of “recent” offences (see paragraph 34 above). The applicant’s interpretation was erroneous and ill ‑ founded. As explained by the various prosecutors, the applicant’s detention on the grounds of section 264(1)(2) had been justified; there was no reason to consider that it could only be applied in respect of “recent” cases. The “objective observer” test had been satisfied – there had been objective information about a specific criminal offence pointing to a particular individual. The Government referred to the testimony of I.B. and V.Z. against the applicant in that regard. Thus, his detention had not been based merely on an “assumption” but on a “reasonable suspicion”. 42.     The Government emphasised that the applicant’s detention after 10   a.m. on 18 February 2018 had not been arbitrary. There had been no signs or elements of bad faith or deception on the part of the KNAB. Unlike in the case of Kasparov v. Russia (no.   53659/07, § 56, 11   October 2016), the Government in the present case provided evidence to the Court proving a “reasonable suspicion” against the applicant. All the legal requirements under the Criminal Procedure Law had been met – his detention had been properly documented, he had been questioned in the presence of a lawyer and he had subsequently taken part in searches and seizures, activities which had also been properly documented. His release from the short-term detention facility had been documented, and he had been officially declared a suspect shortly thereafter. 43.     Moreover, the applicant’s detention had not been “prolonged” as he had been released before the expiry of the forty-eight-hour time-limit laid down in domestic law. The Government reiterated that reasons for the applicant’s detention had been given (see paragraphs 11 and 40 above); the prosecution had reviewed the relevant procedural record at three levels and found that the reasons provided for the applicant’s detention complied with domestic law (see paragraphs 17 to 21 above). 44 .     As to the necessity of the applicant’s detention after 10 a.m. on 18   February 2018, the Government noted that the case had been at the early stages of investigation. It had been necessary to protect the effectiveness of that investigation from any attempts to hinder it. The Government disagreed with the applicant’s contention that he should only have been detained for as long as he had been directly involved in the investigative activities. They emp