CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 septembre 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 56 September 2003 Kadiķis v. Latvia (no. 2) (dec.) - 62393/00 Decision 25.9.2003 [Section I] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Conditions of detention in a provisional isolation block of a local branch of the State police: admissible Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Six month issue raised by the Court of its own motion Difference between date of letter introducing application and date of posting In April 2000 the applicant was sentenced to fifteen days’ “administrative detention” for contempt of court, an offence under the Code of Administrative Offences. No appeal lay against that decision. The applicant lodged an application to set aside and an application for annulment, which were dismissed. The applicant was held in the provisional isolation block of the Directorate of the State Police in Liepāja . He was placed in a cell measuring 6 sq. m., which regularly housed four of five prisoners. Owing to lack of space, the only furniture was a wooden platform serving as a common bed for the prisoners. No daylight entered the cell, which had continuous artificial lighting, was badly ventilated and had no sanitary fittings. The prisoners received one meal per day. The applicant states that he was not allowed outside throughout his detention. He began a hunger strike and states that he was obliged to end it when his health seriously deteriorated. Admissible under Articles 3 and 13, following joinder to the merits of the objection of failure to exhaust all domestic remedies raised in respect of Article 3. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 and Article 2 of Protocol no. 7: The respondent Government’s objection of failure to comply with the six-month period in respect of Article 6 is upheld. First, as the remedies exercised by the applicant against the order establishing the administrative offence depend on the discretion of the authority seised, they are extraordinary procedural remedies which are not taken into account in the calculation of the six-month period. The final domestic decision for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 is therefore the order of April 2000. As Latvian law provides that such a decision is to be served on the person convicted, the six-month period begins to run on the date on which the terms of the decision are actually communicated to the applicant. While it is true the applicant’s first letter   to the Court is dated one day before the expiry of the six-month period, the letter was posted three days later and the Court considers that it is the date of posting indicated on the postmark that must be taken as the date on which the application was submitted. Although under Latvian law the relevant period is automatically extended when it coincides with a holiday, the Court observes that the six-month period is to be calculated according to the criteria applicable to the Convention. The respondent Government have submitted no objection of inadmissibility in respect of Article 2 of Protocol no. 7. The Court reiterates that the rule on compliance with the six-month period is a matter of public policy and that it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion: the complaints are out of time. Inadmissible under Article 5: The applicant’s detention under the order convicting him of an administrative offence is held to be consistent with paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 5: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes