Communicated on 20 September 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 24827/16 Dainis LIEPIÅ…Å against Latvia lodged on 28 April 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dainis Liepiņš , is a Latvian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Ozolnieki .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 23 August 2012 a prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of providing false information in his tax return. At that time the applicant was a member of Jelgava City Council.

On 26 June 2013 the prosecutor declared the applicant a suspect in a criminal case and, on 28 June 2013, the case was forwarded to the Jelgava City Court for trial.

As a member of the political party “Alliance of Latvian Regions” ( Latvijas Re ģionu apvienība ), the applicant participated in the 12th parliamentary elections of 4 October 2014. He was elected to the Parliament ( Saeima ) and on 4 November 2014 the applicant attended its first sitting.

On 6 November the Jelgava City Court adjourned the first-instance court hearing to obtain the Parliament ’ s consent to continue the criminal case against the applicant.

On 5 February 2015, based on a draft prepared by the Committee on Mandate, Ethics, and Applications ( Mand ātu , ētikas un iesniegumu komisija ), the Parliament gave its consent to continue the applicant ’ s trial. On the basis of this decision, and in accordance with section 17(2) of the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure ( Saeimas kārtības rullis ), the applicant lost his right to participate in the sittings of the Parliament, meetings of its committees and other formations to which he had been elected or appointed by the Parliament. In accordance with section 19, the applicant ’ s salary was reduced by half and he lost rights to receive expenses. Those restrictions were to be in force until the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings, or the final conviction.

With applications of 14 and 16 April 2015 the applicant requested the decision of the Parliament to be explained and revoked. In a sitting of 16 April 2015 the members of the Parliament, including the applicant, discussed the interpretation and application of section 17(2) of the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure and the restrictions imposed on the applicant. Nonetheless, the decision remained unchanged and the applicant was suspended from further participation in the work of the Parliament. A written explanatory note was also provided to the applicant by the Legal Bureau of the Parliament ( Saeimas Juridiskais birojs ) on 22 April 2015 and by the Parliament on 22 May 2015. The Legal Bureau, inter alia, noted that this regulation was aimed at avoiding unjustified interference in the work and independence of the Parliament by the executive and judicial branches.

On 25 June 2015 the applicant challenged the decision of 5 February 2015 before the District Administrative Court. On 2 July 2015 the District Administrative Court refused to accept and examine his application. It found that this complaint was outside the jurisdiction of the administrative courts because the Parliament ’ s decision of 5 February 2015 was a political decision, rather than an administrative act or an action of a public authority. With a final decision of 4 September 2015 the Supreme Court upheld this refusal.

On 29 February 2016 the applicant challenged the constitutionality of sections 17 (2) and 19 of the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure before the Constitutional Court ( Satversmes tiesa ). In the constitutional complaint, the applicant argued that the disputed regulation breached his rights to participate in the work of the State under Article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia ( Latvijas Republikas Satversme ), which also included his rights to sit as a member of Parliament once he had been elected. He observed that the infringement of his rights had not been proportionate to the aims pursued and noted that nowadays in a democratic society it would not be possible for the executive power or judiciary to influence the independence of a Member of Parliament who is under prosecution or trial.

With a final decision of 22 March 2016 the Constitutional Court refused to initiate the proceedings on the grounds that the legal reasoning included in the applicant ’ s complaint was manifestly insufficient for allowing the claim.

With a final judgment of 1 August 2016, the applicant was convicted of providing false information in his tax return. As from that day, the applicant lost his status as a member of Parliament.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia

Article 101

“All citizens of Latvia are entitled to participate, in accordance with the law, in the activities of the State and of local government ...”

2. The Rules of Parliamentary Procedure Act

Section 17

“ (2) If the Parliament (“ Saeima ”) consents to initiation of a prosecution against a Member of Parliament, that Member of Parliament loses the right to participate in the sittings of the Parliament, meetings of its committees and other formations, in which the Parliament has elected or appointed him or her, until the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings, or the conviction . ..”

Section 19

“If a Member of Parliament is suspended from the work of the Parliament on the grounds of Article 17, over the period of the suspension he or she loses the right to expenses provided by section 14, but the salary is reduced by half. ... If the criminal case is discontinued without finding the Member of Parliament guilty or if he or she is acquitted, he or she shall receive all the unpaid salary for the period of suspension, as well as expenses.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the prohibition to participate in the work of the Parliament during his trial has infringed his rights to be ele cted. He also invokes Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did he comply with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, considering the extent of the legal reasoning included in the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint?

2. Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to sit as a member of parliament once elected in free elections which have ensured the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature?