Communicated on 16 March 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 36148/11 Raitis TAUBENBERGS against Latvia lodged on 31 October 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Raitis Taubenbergs , is a Latvian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Saldus .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. On an unknown date the applicant was convicted and a prison sentence was imposed on him. From May 2007 to April 2009 he worked at the canteen in Mat i sa Prison and Riga Central Prison.

1. Civil proceedings

4. In March 2009 the applicant brought a civil claim against the Prisons Administration claiming unpaid salary for the work carried out in the prison canteens. On 16 February 2010 a judge of Riga City Latgale District Court declined jurisdiction and discontinued the proceedings. The decision stated that compensation claims arising from administrative acts fell outside the jurisdiction of civil courts. After several procedural decisions the final decision was adopted on 22 September 2010 when the Senate of the Supreme Court in substance upheld the lower court ’ s decision.

5. The Senate argued that pursuant to section 51(6) of the Sentence Enforcement Code ( “ Sodu izpildes kodekss ” ) and point 6 of the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers no. 481 entitled “The order of employing convicted persons in detention institutions” ( MK noteikumi Nr. 481 “Notiesāto personu noda rbināšanas kārtība brīvības atņe mšanas iestādēs ” ) , during the period from 2007 to 2009 the employment relationship of convicted persons in detention institutions were governed by administrative acts issued by the administration of the detention institution and not by private law contracts. Therefore an appeal against such administrative acts should be brought pursuant to the procedure laid down in the Administrative Procedure Law.

2. Administrative proceedings

6. On 5 November 2010 the applicant asked the Prisons Administration to renew the procedural time-limit for lodging a complaint against the administrative acts by which the administration of the detention institution had applied to him lower hourly rates than those which had been set out in the respective legislation at the material time. He argued that he had missed the statutory time-limit because of the attempt to settle the dispute in civil courts. According to the applicant, in identical circumstances the civil courts had ruled in favour of another claimant and thus the applicant could reasonably expect the civil courts to be an effective remedy in this type of dispute.

7. On 6 December 2010 the Prisons Administration dismissed the applicant ’ s request to renew the time-limit for lodging a complaint. The institution did not recognise the applicant ’ s attempt to institute civil proceedings as a justifiable reason to renew the time-limit. The decision also referred to amendments to the Sentence Enforcement Code which came into force on 21 May 2009 and explicitly provided that all the employment disputes in detention institutions were to be brought before civil courts. As a consequence the Prisons Administration contended that it was unquestionable that all employment disputes raised by employed convicts before 21 May 2009 should be settled in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Law.

8. Upon the applicant ’ s appeal against the decision of the Prisons Administration, on 3 February 2011 the Administrative District Court asked the chairmen of the Senate of the Supreme Court to decide on the attribution of jurisdiction in relation to the applicant ’ s complaint. The Administrative District Court in its request referred to a decision of 12 October 2010 adopted by the Senate of the Administrative Court which in comparable factual circumstances had decided that the dispute was within the private law sphere and thus outside the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.

9. The request also referred to civil proceedings concerning an identical dispute arising from employment relations in prison. In the la tter case on 29 September 2009 the Senate of the Supreme Cou rt upheld a judgment of 16 June 2008 adopted by Zemgale Regional Court. The judgment was adopted in favour of the plaintiff to whom the Prisons Administration was ordered to pay the unpaid salary.

10 . On 25 February 2011 the three chairme n of the Senate of the Supreme Court decided that the applicant ’ s complaint should be assessed by the administrative court . The decision was based on the grounds that before the amendment s of 21 May 2009 to the Sentence Enforcement Code the attribution of jurisdiction in employment disputes was not clearly formulated. It was also noted that the decision aimed to grant the applicant access to court, as well as to provide him with effective remedies.

11 . On 11 April 2011 the Administrative District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint and refused to renew the time-limit for submitting a complaint. The court recalled that an applicant could be excused for failure to comply with a statutory time-limit only in case of circumstances beyond the applicant ’ s control. Observing that already on 16 February 2010 the applicant was aware that his claim fell outside the jurisdiction of civil courts, the Administrative District Court considered that the applicant could have lodged his complaint with the Prisons Administration in time, i.e. within one year of the entry into force of the contested administrative acts. Accordingly the applicant ’ s attempts to institute civil proceedings were not considered a sufficient reason to justify non-compliance with the statutory time-limit.

B. Relevant domestic law

12 . Before the amendments of 30 April 2009 (in force as from 21 May 2009), section 51 (6) of Sentence Enforcement Code provided that convicted persons in detention institutions were employed based on an order adopted by head of a detention institution. It did not set out an order of the settlement of disputes arising from above-mentioned employment relations in prison. Upon the entry into force of the above-mentioned amendments, section 51 (6) provided that prior to taking up any maintenance work in prison , an agreement shall be entered into with a convicted person who is serving his or her sentence in a closed prison or a partly-closed prison; an employment contract shall be entered into with a convicted person who is serving his or her sentence in an open prison . It also provided that d isputes between a convicted person and the detention institution regarding employment matters shall be settled by mutual agreement. Disputes regarding legal relationships established on the basis of an agreement shall be settled in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Civil Procedure Law, whereas d isputes regarding legal relationships established on the basis of an employment contract shall be settled in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Labour Dispute Law.

13 . Section 46 of the Administrative Procedure Law provided that upon petition of a participant in administrative proceedings , a missed procedural time-limit may be renewed by institutions, courts or judges if they find that the delay was caused by a justifiable reason. Upon renewing a time period in regard to which there has been a delay, an institution or court shall concurrently permit the carrying out of the procedural action in question.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was denied access to a court.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, especially in the light of the decision adopted by the Senate on 25 February 2011?