CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } Communicated on 3 October 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 28535/15 Algina KONOPLIANKO against Latvia lodged on 11 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns rights of a victim of an unresolved crime: (i)     the right to have access to a court to claim compensation, and (ii)     the right to effective remedy in respect of an allegedly protracted criminal investigation.   On 24 February 2009 the applicant was robbed on the street and sustained serious injuries (broken leg, injuries to the face and head). On the same date criminal proceedings were instituted (no.   11095039909) and she was recognised to be a victim (approximate amount of damages claimed: EUR   10,000). She lodged various complaints about the allegedly protracted investigation to which she received negative replies (final reply: 9 February 2015). The perpetrator of the crime remains unknown. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, in respect of her complaint about access to a court?   1.2. Did the applicant have access to a court to claim compensation for damage she sustained as a result of the crime, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in view of the fact that the perpetrator of the crime remains unknown?   2.1. Did the applicant have an “arguable claim” that there had been a violation of her rights under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article   6 §   1 about the allegedly protracted criminal investigation?   2.2.   Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly protracted criminal investigation, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?