CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s63658818 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s25198F8F { width:149.77pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28535/15 Algina KONOPLIANKO against Latvia   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25   January 2024 as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   28535/15) 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”) on 11 June 2015 by a Lithuanian national, Ms Algina Konoplianko, who was born in 1956 and lives in Riga (“the applicant”), and who had been granted legal aid and was represented by Ms D. Valds, a lawyer practising in Riga; the decision to give notice of the applicant’s complaints concerning the right of access to a court to claim compensation and the right to effective remedy in respect of an allegedly protracted criminal investigation to the Latvian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms   Kristīne Līce, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the right of the applicant, a victim of an unsolved crime, to have access to a court, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in connection with a claim for compensation, and to an effective remedy in respect of an allegedly protracted criminal investigation under Article 6 §   1 in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention. 2.     On 24 February 2009 the applicant was robbed on the street and sustained bodily injuries (a broken leg, injuries to her face and head). On the same day, a criminal investigation was initiated, and the applicant was recognised as a victim of that crime. She claimed damages of approximately 11,000 euros (EUR). The applicant later increased her claim to EUR   22,432.86. 3 .     On 20 November 2009 the applicant claimed compensation from the State under the Law on State Compensation to Victims ( Par valsts kompensāciju cietušajiem ). On 16 December 2009 the Legal Aid Administration ( Juridiskās palīdzības administrācija ) awarded her compensation of 450.00 Latvian lati (LVL ­ – approximately EUR   640.29), which was the maximum provided for by law. 4 .     The applicant complained to the prosecution authorities about the length of the criminal investigation. By a final decision of 9   February 2015, the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint, concluding that the only reason why the criminal investigation could not move forward was that the perpetrator of the offence could not be found. The prosecutor did not find any serious procedural errors on the part of the authorities that could have contributed to an unreasonable delay in the proceedings and found that there was no unjustified inactivity that could have jeopardised the investigation. 5.     The perpetrator of the crime remains unknown. 6.     By a decision of 29   November 2019, the investigator closed the criminal investigation owing to the statute of limitations. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicant complained that, as a victim of an unsolved crime, her right of access to a court to claim compensation had been violated owing to the inadequate pre-trial investigation, the State authorities’ failure to identify the perpetrator, and her inability to lodge a civil claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered. 8.     The Government argued that the applicant’s complaint regarding the right of access to a court in connection with her claim for compensation fell outside the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and was therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. They further argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 9.     The applicant disputed the Government’s arguments. 10.     The Court reiterates that the Convention does not confer any right, as such, to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2004-I). However, domestic law can provide for a right for the victim of an offence to claim reparation for the damage caused by that offence by means of civil-party proceedings, that is, by allowing the victim to join criminal proceedings as a civil party. This is one possible way of providing for a civil action for reparation of the damage ( see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no.   41720/13, § 194, 25 June 2019). 11.     Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Law guarantees a person who has been harmed in connection with a criminal offence the procedural opportunity to request and receive compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage suffered. Under section 350 of this Law, such compensation is either paid voluntarily by the person who has caused harm to the victim or on the basis of a court ruling or a prosecutor’s decision. The Court notes that the parties have not disputed that there is no legal basis in domestic law for the right to receive compensation in full for damage sustained as a result of a criminal offence if the perpetrator of that criminal offence has not been identified. 12 .     The Court reiterates that for the application of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb, there must exist a “dispute” over one of the applicant’s civil rights or obligations and the result of the proceedings in question must be directly decisive for such a right or obligation (see Fayed v.   the United Kingdom , 21   September 1994, § 56, Series A no. 294-B). In the present case, the criminal investigation, involving the applicant as a victim, was aimed at finding the perpetrator of the criminal offence. However, the investigation did not result in the bringing of charges against anyone because the perpetrator remained unknown. The Court notes that the prosecutor established that the inability to identify the perpetrator was the only reason why the criminal proceedings could not move forward (see paragraph   4 above) and found no unjustified delays during the investigation. Against that background, the Court finds that the pre-trial stage of the criminal procedure was of a purely investigative nature and did not determine the applicant’s “civil rights and obligations”. In sum, Article 6 of the Convention was not applicable. 13.     In addition, the Court further observes that the applicant was compensated under the special mechanism provided for under Latvian law (see paragraph 3 above). The Court therefore considers that she had at her disposal an accessible avenue for receiving compensation and that she used this special mechanism, even bearing in mind that the perpetrator of the crime remained unknown. 14.     It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione   materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 of the Convention IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     The applicant complained under Article 13 in conjunction with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law with regard to her grievances on account of the unreasonable duration of the investigation, which she had joined as a civil party. 16.     The Government argued that the applicant’s complaint under Article   6   §   1 regarding the allegedly protracted investigation was manifestly ill-founded and that, therefore, she had no “arguable claim” under Article   13. They further maintained that the State had taken immediate and appropriate steps to identify the perpetrator of the criminal offence and that there had been no serious deficiencies in the conduct of the criminal proceedings or delays attributable to the responsible authorities. 17.     The applicant maintained her complaint. 18.     The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy by which to complain of a breach of the Convention rights and freedoms. The Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision; however, there must be a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase , cited above, § 217). Article 13 requires that a remedy be available in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as “arguable” in terms of the Convention ( see De Tommaso v.   Italy [GC], no.   43395/09, § 180, 23 February 2017). 19.     Having regard to its conclusion concerning the applicant’s Article   6 complaints (see paragraph 12 above), the Court finds that her complaint under this head is not arguable and is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3. Accordingly, it must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 15 February 2024.     Martina Keller   María Elósegui   Deputy Registrar   President