CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2020

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 15 January 2020 Published on 3 February 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 48987/16 Romāns SIŅICINS against Latvia lodged on 15 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of criminal proceedings and the lack of domestic remedies in this regard. On 7 December 1994 the applicant was brought before the domestic authorities on suspicion of theft. On 14 November 2017 the first-instance court acquitted the applicant and the case is currently pending before the appellate court. Thus, at this moment, the proceedings had already lasted 25 years, out of which 10 years the applicant was wanted by police or subjected to the court’s order to be brought to the hearing by police. The applicant argues that according to the domestic law the termination of criminal proceedings due to its excessive length is only possible if he pleads guilty. However, he has been constantly pleading innocent and, according to the applicant, under the domestic law pleading guilty would deprive him of a compensation for the length of proceedings.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Is the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Does the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?