Communicated on 30 November 2020 Published on 21 December 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 31647/18 Jekaterina PETRAKEVIÄŒA against Latvia and 4 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern fair trial and in particular the right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms.

The investigator separated the confiscation proceedings from the main criminal proceedings attaching numerous items of evidence and procedural documents from the main criminal case file. The applicants applied to the investigator, and the first-instance court, for leave to consult that evidence and documents however these requests were dismissed in order to protect the investigation secret of the main criminal proceedings where the investigation was still ongoing.

On 25 May 2017 the Constitutional Court ( Satversmes tiesa ) found unconstitutional the legal provision establishing that the investigator ’ s decision regarding leave to consult the case file could only be appealed before the prosecutor and not the domestic courts. Therefore, the applicants applied to the domestic courts requesting leave to consult evidence and documents mentioned in the decision on confiscation proceedings. However, the Riga Regional Court decided to dismiss that request relying on the necessity to protect the investigation secret. In its decision to confiscate the seized assets, the Riga Regional Court quoted some of the statements given by witnesses in the main criminal proceedings.

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-disclosure of evidence and procedural documents in the confiscation proceedings in order to protect the investigation secret into the related criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the applicants also complain in general of being placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the investigator and prosecutor (application nos. 32199/18 and 32202/18) and of lack of reasoning of the confiscation decisions (applications nos. 31647/18; 32199/18 and 32202/18) , as well as under Article 6 § 2 about breach of presumption of innocence. Two of the applicants (application nos. 32576/18 and 32585/18) invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 complaining about the deprivation of their property.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations (see Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia , no. 36862/05, § 91, 12 May 2015), in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and, in particular, were the rights to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms respected?

Exactly what evidence and documents were each of the applicants able to access from the confiscation case file? When deciding on the disclosure of the evidence and documents, did the Riga Regional Court weigh up the applicants ’ interest in disclosure against the public interest of concealment (see Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29777/96, § 45, ECHR 2000 ‑ II)?

Was the non-disclosure sufficiently counterbalanced by other procedural safeguards (see Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 151, 19 September 2017)? If yes, what were those safeguards?

Were the applicants placed at a substantial disadvantage vis ‑ Ã ‑ vis their opponents who had full access to the confiscation case file?

2. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?

3 . As regards applications nos. 32576/18 and 32585/18, were the applicants deprived of their possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Year of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

31647/18

28/06/2018

Jekaterina PETRAKEVIÄŒA

1978 Babites novads

Karīna LANDMESERE

32199/18

05/07/2018

Igors VOLGINS

1969 Babīte

Igors SANDLERS

32202/18

03/07/2018

Igors TUKACINSKIS

1958 RÄ«ga

32576/18

10/07/2018

Kristīne GRANTE 1970 Rīga

32585/18

10/07/2018

Sergejs KUĻEŠEVIČS 1967 Rīga