CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 février 2026

.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 } .s4200B979 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .s3FD9E4E3 { width:138.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 9276/19 and 9281/19 Jevgenija STUDENTE against Latvia and Pēteris STUDENTS against Latvia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5   February 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Davor Derenčinović , President ,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications nos. 9276/19 and 9281/19 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 8   February 2019 by two Latvian nationals, Ms Jevgenija Studente and Mr   Pēteris Students, born in 1949 and 1957 respectively and living in Riga (“the applicants”), and represented by Mr Andrejs Students, a lawyer practicing in Riga; the decision to give notice of the applicants’ complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings to the Latvian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms E. L. Vītola and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings which were subsequently discontinued as time-barred. 2 .     Before the Convention entered into force in respect of Latvia on 27   June 1997, criminal proceedings (no. 35565295) were instituted, the first applicant was questioned as a witness and the second applicant was charged with resisting police officers in a violent manner while the police were performing their official duties. 3.     On 24 December 1997 a prosecutor charged both applicants (the second applicant for the second time and the first applicant for the first time) with resisting police officers in a violent manner while the police were performing their official duties. The first applicant did not receive the bill of indictment, whereas the second applicant did. 4.     On 25 May 2017 the criminal proceedings were discontinued on the grounds that they had become time-barred. It is only when she received that decision that the first applicant became aware of the criminal charges against her. 5.     Both applicants lodged appeals against the decision of 25   May 2017, seeking full exoneration. However, both the Riga District Court and, subsequently, the Riga Regional Court, by a final decision of 16   August 2018, upheld that decision. 6.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of excessive length of the criminal proceedings. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 8 .     The Government raised several objections, including that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, the applicants should have lodged a claim with the courts of general jurisdiction on the basis of Article   92 of the Constitution and section   1635 of the Civil Law, seeking compensation for damage sustained as a result of the allegedly lengthy criminal proceedings. 9 .     In that connection, the Government provided three examples of the relevant domestic case-law (a judgment by the Riga Regional Court of 11   March 2013, case no. C27200511; a judgment by the Riga Regional Court of 21   December 2017, case no. C27178112; and a judgment by the Latgale Regional Court of 10 January 2019, case no. CA-0034-19) in support of their argument that the compensatory remedy provided for in Article   92 of the Constitution and section   1635 of the Civil Law existed, not only in theory, but also in practice for claims concerning the length of criminal proceedings. 10.     The applicants disagreed. They maintained that the case-law examples provided by the Government did not prove the existence of an effective remedy for the complaints regarding the length of criminal proceedings. 11.     The Court reiterates that under Article   35   §   1 of the Convention it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The purpose of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, §   68, 17   September   2009, and the case-law cited therein). 12.     The rule in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention is based on the assumption, reflected in Article   13 (with which it has a close affinity), that there is an effective domestic remedy available in respect of the alleged breach of an individual’s Convention rights (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no.   36813/97, § 141, ECHR 2006-V). 13.     Nevertheless, the only remedies which Article   35 of the Convention requires to be exhausted are those that relate to the breaches alleged and which are, at the same time, available and sufficient. The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Scordino , cited above, § 142, with further references). 14.     The Court notes that it has already established the existence of an effective domestic remedy concerning the length of criminal proceedings, which could result in either the discontinuation of those proceedings or a reduction of the sentence imposed (see, for example, Trūps v.   Latvia (dec.), no.   58497/08, 20 November 2012). However, this remedy is not applicable in the present case since the criminal proceedings were already discontinued as time-barred. 15.     The Government have raised a different objection as to exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraph 8 above) which is similar to their objection raised in Guravska v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 41553/18, 7 July 2020). In that case the Government proved the effectiveness and availability in theory and practice of a compensatory remedy for the length of civil proceedings on the basis of Article   92 of the Constitution and established that it constituted an effective remedy for complaints related to length of civil proceedings. The Court agreed with the applicant that section   1635 of the Civil Law was not applicable in public-law disputes against the State, however, that did not change the fact that a remedy based directly on the Constitution was available (ibid., § 31). 16.     The Court finds that the examples provided by the Government in the present case (see paragraph 9 above) sufficiently demonstrate that the compensatory remedy provided for in Article   92 of the Constitution was also applicable to claims concerning the length of criminal proceedings. In those cases, the claims concerning the length of the criminal proceedings were allowed and examined on the merits by the domestic courts. Moreover, the assessment of the length of the criminal proceedings was in line with the principles established by the Court. 17.     Therefore, the Court finds that the Government have sufficiently established the effectiveness and availability, in theory and in practice, of a compensatory remedy under Article   92 of the Constitution for the complaints concerning excessive length of criminal proceedings. The Court accepts the Government’s argument that Article   92 of the Constitution serves as the basis for complaints concerning both length of civil proceedings and length of criminal proceedings. 18.     The Court further notes that, at the time when the applicants submitted their applications to the Court on 8   February 2019, there had already existed an effective domestic remedy whose scope and application had been clearly laid down and confirmed in the case-law of the Riga Regional Court and the Latgale Regional Court (see paragraph 9 above). 19.     With regard to the applicants’ objection as to the effectiveness of the compensatory remedy, the Court reiterates that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to use that avenue of redress (see Scoppola , cited above, § 70). In so far as there exists at the national level a remedy enabling the domestic courts to address, at least in substance, the argument of a violation of a given Convention right, it is that remedy which should be used (see Vučković and Others v.   Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 75, 25   March 2014). 20.     The Court considers that the applicants were required to avail themselves of this legal avenue. The applicants have not established that that remedy was in fact used, or that it was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances, or that there existed special circumstances exempting the applicants from this requirement (see Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 89, 9 July 2015). 21.     Against this background, and bearing in mind its subsidiary role, the Court considers that the complaints under Article 6   §   1 should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article   35   §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. In view of this conclusion, the Court does not need to deal with the Government’s other objections. 22.     Lastly, the Court notes that, after communication, the first applicant introduced new complaints, in essence under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, related to the same criminal proceedings. As it has decided in previous cases, the scope of the case is limited to the complaints which have been communicated to the Government and thus the Court need not rule on complaints raised after communication of an application (see Ruža v.   Latvia (dec.), no. 33798/05, §§ 30-31, 11 May 2010, and the case-law cited therein). Given that those complaints were not raised before communication of the application, they are not part of the case referred to the Court. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 March 2026.     Liv Tigerstedt   Davor Derenčinović   Deputy Registrar   President