CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2023

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } Published on 17 April 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18617/20 Jevgeņijs SISA against Latvia lodged on 15 April 2020 communicated on 28 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings no.   11860006216 against the applicant, who claims to have been incited by an undercover agent, acting together with the officers of the Internal Security Bureau ( Iekšējās Drošības Birojs ), to accept a bribe. By a final decision of 16   December 2019 the Senate of the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 20   May 2019 of the Latgale Regional Court by which the applicant was convicted for accepting a bribe in his capacity as a traffic police officer. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was not given a fair hearing in the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he claims that it was not clear what the purpose of the undercover operation was and which particular actions had been authorised within the undercover operation. Under Article 6 § 1 the applicant further complains that the domestic courts had failed to establish the existence of any suspicion of his involvement in a criminal activity prior to the undercover operation and that his plea of incitement had not been properly examined in the domestic proceedings. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no.   74420/01, §§ 49-61, ECHR 2008, Kuzmina and Others v. Russia , nos.   66152/14 and 8 others, §§ 85-94, 20 April 2021, and Baltiņš v. Latvia , no. 25282/07, §§ 55-57, 8 January 2013)? In particular: (a) Was the applicant subjected to incitement to commit the offence of accepting a bribe, for which he was convicted by the domestic courts? (b) Was the response of the domestic courts provided to the applicant’s plea of incitement compatible with the fairness guarantees required under Article 6 of the Convention?