CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 juin 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sD3427EA2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s97C4B4C1 { width:44pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   347 15.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS KORNAKOVS v. LATVIA and MOISEJEVS v. LATVIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Kornakovs v. Latvia (application no. 61005/00) and Moisejevs v. Latvia (no.   64846/01).   In the case of Moisejevs v. Latvia the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the insufficient diet provided to the applicant during his detention; and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention on account of the lack of a remedy in respect of the refusal to allow family visits.   In the case of Kornakovs v. Latvia the Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence); and a violation of Article 34 on account of the disciplinary sanction imposed on the applicant for sending a letter to the Court.   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been: a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) on account of the unlawfulness of the applicants’ continued detention after 11 March and 4 June 1998 respectively; a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention; a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) on account of the excessive length of the proceedings against the applicants; a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life)   on account of the refusal to allow the applicants to receive family visits; a violation of Article 34 (right of individual application) on account of the interception of the initial letters sent by the applicants to the Court; and no violation of Article 34 on account of the refusal to provide the applicants with copies of certain documents from the case file.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr Kornakovs 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. Observing that Mr Moisejevs had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, it considered that no award should be made to him. (The judgments are available only in French.)     1.     Principal facts   Eduards Kornakovs and Oļegs Moisejevs are former nationals of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and “permanently resident non-citizens” of Latvia who were born in 1970 and 1959 respectively. Mr Kornakovs lives in Riga and Mr Moisejevs is currently being held in Mārupe (Latvia).   The applicants were both arrested in connection with an investigation into an armed robbery involving the use of violence. Mr Kornakovs was arrested on 11 September 1996 and Mr Moisejevs on 4 December 1996. Both were detained pending trial in Matīsa Prison in Riga.   On 11 March 1998 and 4 June 1998 the maximum period of detention permitted at the preliminary investigation stage under the second paragraph of Article 77 of the KPK (the former Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the material time), namely one year and six months, expired with regard to the first and the second applicant respectively. However, as their release had been “suspended” in accordance with that Article, they were not released.   On 4 September 1998 the applicants were committed to stand trial before Riga Regional Court, which considered the case until 16 August 2001, holding 72 hearings. Mr Moisejevs maintained that, on the days of the hearings, he was denied lunch or given a derisory amount of food.   During the proceedings the applicants made a number of unsuccessful applications to be released. As regards the conditions of their detention, the applicants submitted that a number of requests by their families to visit them were refused. Both asserted that the prison authorities hindered their correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights by refusing to post their initial letter. In addition, Mr Kornakovs was reprimanded by the prison management for sending a letter to the Court through indirect channels by posting it via another person who was at liberty.   On 24 and 25 September 2001 the Regional Court found the applicants guilty as charged. It sentenced Mr Kornakovs to ten years and one month’s imprisonment and Mr Moisejevs to 13 years; on appeal, Mr Kornakovs’ sentence was reduced to eight years and one month and Mr Moisejevs’ to 12 years. On 6 August 2003 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicants.   Mr Kornakovs was released on 11 October 2004, having served his sentence.               2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application in the case of Kornakovs v. Latvia was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 September 2000 and declared admissible on 21 October 2004. The application in Moisejevs v. Latvia was lodged with the Court on 13 November 2000 and declared partly admissible on 21 October 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , Jautrite Briede (Latvian), ad hoc judge , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints The applicants alleged that a portion of their pre-trial detention had not satisfied the requirements of Article 5   §   1. They further complained under Article 5   §   3 and Article 6   §   1 of the length both of their pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against them. Relying on Article 8, the applicants complained that they had been prohibited for an extensive period from receiving family visits while in detention and that the prison authorities had screened mail sent to them by the Court. Lastly, they submitted that certain steps taken by the prison authorities had hindered the effective exercise of their right of application to the Court.   Mr Moisejevs further maintained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3, by having been denied food on the days of the hearings in the regional court. He also relied on Article 13.   Decision of the Court   Complaints common to both cases   Article 5 § 1 The Court noted that the applicants’ continued detention after the date on which they should have been released (11 March and 4 June 1998 respectively) had been based on the fifth paragraph of Article 77 of the KPK, from which it did not appear clear that there was an obligation to keep an accused person in detention, let alone a possibility of doing so without a court order. That provision had therefore been incompatible with the “lawfulness” requirement in Article 5   §   1.   It further appeared that the automatic extension of the applicants’ pre-trial detention had been the result of a widespread practice by the Latvian authorities which had no precise basis in law and had clearly been designed to compensate for gaps in the KPK.   In those circumstances, the Court held in both cases that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 1.   Article 5 § 3 The Court noted that Mr Kornakovs and Mr Moisejevs had been in pre-trial detention for five years and 14 days and four years and ten months respectively, including periods of four years, two months and 28 days and four years, two months and 28 days after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Latvia (27 June 1997).   Having regard to all the circumstances of both cases and to the parties’ submissions, the Court was unable to see any reasons capable of justifying such lengthy periods of pre-trial detention.   Accordingly, the Court held in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that the proceedings against Mr Kornakovs and Mr Moisejevs had lasted six years, ten months and 25 days and six years, eight months and two days respectively, including six years, one month and ten days after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Latvia.   Having regard to all the circumstances of both cases, it considered that such periods were excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement.   The Court therefore held in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 8   The Court observed that by the time of the first request to visit him, submitted by his mother in December 1999, Mr Kornakovs had already spent more than three years in prison.   It further noted that more than two years had elapsed between Mr Moisejevs’ most recent visit from his girlfriend, which had been authorised in July 1999, and the refusal by the President of the Regional Court of his request to the same effect in November 2001. A request from his parents to visit him had been refused after he had spent almost six years in detention without seeing them.   The Court considered that only exceptional circumstances could justify an absolute prohibition on family visits after such long periods of isolation. The relevant judge had not, however, given any reasons for refusing the requests in question.   The Court therefore held in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 8.       Article 34   Interception of the applicants’ initial letter to the Court The Court considered that the refusal to post the applicants’ letters to it had entailed a hindrance of their right of individual petition that was all the more unacceptable as it had concerned their initial correspondence, serving in principle to determine whether they had complied with the six-month time-limit in Article 35   §   1. By intercepting the letters and neglecting to forward them to the Court, the Latvian authorities had infringed Article 34.   Refusal to provide photocopies of certain documents In the absence of any details regarding, among other things, the decisions requested by the applicants, the Court did not consider that the prison authorities’ refusal to produce copies of those documents at the State’s expense and to send them to the applicants had attained the minimum level of severity to qualify as a “hindrance” within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 34. It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 34 on that account.   Other complaints raised in the Kornakovs case   Article 8   The Court noted that the opening and screening by the prison authorities of mail it had sent the applicant had not been in accordance with the “law” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. It therefore held that there had been a violation of that provision.   Article 34   The Court acknowledged that the prison authorities had a legitimate interest in monitoring the dispatch of mail sent by prisoners; in particular, it was in their interests to ensure that such mail was in the first place handled by them and not by others. That meant, among other things, that they were entitled to lay down precise rules on the subject and to impose penalties on prisoners who broke them. However, the position was different in the case of letters intended for the Court. By punishing the applicant for communicating with the Court, Latvia had fallen short of its obligations under Article 34. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of that provision.   Other complaints raised in the Moisejevs case   Article 3   The Government had not denied the applicant’s allegation that on the days of the hearings he had not been given a normal lunch and had been limited to a slice of bread, an onion and a piece of grilled fish or a meatball. The Court considered that such a meal was clearly insufficient to meet the body’s functional needs, especially in view of the fact that the applicant’s participation in the hearings by definition caused him increased psychological tension. It noted in particular that, following a complaint by the applicant, he and the other defendants had started to receive more food when staying on the premises of Riga Regional Court; the authorities had thus realised that the meals being distributed were insufficient.   The Court further noted that the Government had not rebutted the applicant’s assertion that on a number of occasions when returning to the prison in the evening he had received only a bread roll instead of a full dinner. That being so, the Court concluded that, at least before late 2000, the applicant had regularly suffered from hunger on the days of the hearings.   The Court considered that the suffering experienced by the applicant had amounted to “degrading treatment”. It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13   Observing that Latvian law had not enabled the applicant to complain about the refusals to allow his family to visit him, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press Contacts     Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.