CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juin 2001

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 31 June 2001 Lavents v. Latvia (dec.) - 58442/00 Decision 7.6.2001 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Independent tribunal Withdrawal of judges from case following statements in the press by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Justice contesting their decision: admissible Impartial tribunal Statements made in the press about the applicant by the judge presiding the court dealing with the merits of criminal proceedings against him: admissible Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Prohibition by the courts on a prisoner receiving visits by the wife and minor daughter: admissible Respect for correspondence Control of prisoner's correspondence: admissible The applicant was chairman of the supervisory board of Latvia’s largest bank. When the bank went into liquidation, the consequences for the national economy were disastrous and hundreds of thousands of people were ruined. In June 1995 the applicant was charged with sabotage and other offences under banking and business legislation, and also with unlawful possession of firearms. In July 1995 he was detained pending trial. Various steps were taken in connection with his detention and the investigation until October 1996, when the public prosecutor’s office preferred the final indictment against him. From December 1996 to March 1997 he was in hospital under supervision. In June 1997 he was committed for trial, and in October 1997 the examination of the merits of his case began. From October 1997, owing to his serious health problems, he was released from detention and placed under house arrest under constant police supervision until September 1998, when it was decided that he should return to prison. In October 1997 Latvia’s main daily newspaper published information on a joint official statement in which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice expressed their disagreement with the order placing the applicant under house arrest. That same month the judges upheld the preventive measure and withdrew from considering the case on account of the pressure exerted by the Government and public opinion in the light of the statements which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice had made to the press. In October 1997 an order was made for the seizure and examination of his correspondence, including that with his lawyers. The judge who issued the order returned to the applicant’s lawyers the appeal they had lodged against the order, informing them that the order was not subject to appeal. Between April and June 2000 the applicant was transferred to a hospital outside the prison. In September 2000 he was taken to the hospital in Riga Central Prison, but because he could not be given adequate medical treatment in prison, he had to be transferred to an ordinary hospital, where he currently remains, under supervision. In 1999 the national press published statements by the judge presiding over the panel of the court dealing with the applicant’s case. She referred, inter alia , to the applicant’s numerous challenges against her and to the grounds of his defence, which she said she could not understand. In 1999 and 2000 the applicant had on several occasions challenged her and the whole panel of the court dealing with his case, alleging in particular that they had committed serious breaches of the Code of Criminal Procedure which indicated bias on their part; he had also challenged one of the other members of the panel individually. His challenges were dismissed. Admissible under Articles 5 § 3, 5 § 4, 6 § 1 (independent tribunal established by law), 6 § 2 and   8: Preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) – in October 1997 the judge who had ordered the seizure and examination of the applicant’s correspondence had refused to transmit his appeal on the ground that no appeal lay, and the Government had not indicated what other remedy might have been available to the applicant. The objection was dismissed.   © 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