CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 juin 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   Published on 17 July 2023   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 9276/19 and 9281/19 Jevgenija STUDENTE against Latvia and Pēteris STUDENTS against Latvia lodged on 8 February 2019 communicated on 27 June 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the length of criminal proceedings no.35565295 in which both the first applicant (the applicant in case no. 9276/19) and the second applicant (the applicant in case no. 9281/19) were accused. Before the Convention came into force with regard to Latvia on 27 June 1997, by a decision of 23 April 1995 the police inspector instituted the criminal proceedings in respect of the second applicant’s threats to kill two police officers while they were performing their official duties. Both applicants were subsequently charged in those proceedings for resisting police officers in a violent manner while they were performing their official duties. The criminal proceedings were discontinued as statute-barred by a final decision of 16 August 2018. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complain about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     At what date were the first and the second applicant “charged” with a criminal offence, within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, since when was each applicant substantially affected by the investigation conducted because of the suspicion against them (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?