CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 12 December 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31624/18 Ēriks OSIS against Latvia lodged on 29 June 2018 communicated on 24 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of criminal proceedings (no.15830201509) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. On 10 March 2009 the criminal proceedings were instituted on suspicion of tax evasion by officials of a company of which the applicant was a board member. On the same day the company documents were seized from the applicant. On 21 August 2014 the pre-trial investigation was closed and the case was referred to the first-instance court. By a judgment of 14 June 2016 the first-instance court convicted the applicant of tax evasion and sentenced him to 3   years’ imprisonment and a prohibition to engage in business activities for 3   years, and ordered him to pay EUR 334,536.70 in damages to the State. On 6 April 2017 the Riga Regional Court upheld the judgment and on 22   June 2017 a judge of the Supreme Court refused to examine an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant’s lawyer. By a final decision of 28   February 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed another request by the applicant’s lawyer to re-examine the findings of the Riga Regional Court and noted that the appellate court had correctly concluded that there had been no breach of the reasonable time requirement.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     At what date was the applicant “charged” with a criminal offence, within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, since when was the applicant substantially affected by the investigation conducted because of the suspicion against him (see, for example, Kalēja v. Latvia , no.   22059/08, § 36, 5 October 2017)?   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?