Communicated on 14 April 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 17689/14 Nikolajs ZIKOVS against Latvia lodged on 21 February 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Nikolajs Zikovs , is a Latvian national, who was born in 1983 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Riga Central Prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Sruoģis , a lawyer practising in Riga.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 19 February 2011 the applicant went to the cinema. He had an argument with another man. A fight ensued and the applicant fired several shots, of which the other man died. The police arrived immediately and took the applicant into custody.

On 21 February 2011 a judge ordered his detention on remand.

On 24 February 2011 a search of the applicant ’ s car was conducted without a judge ’ s authorization. Several objects and documents were seized: a laptop, a thesis written by the applicant, his sporting equipment and several objects, which the applicant described as being of intimate nature.

On 18 May 2011 the applicant was charged with aggravated murder.

On 26 October 2011 the prosecution announced the end of pre-trial investigation and decided to transfer the case material to court ( lēmums par kriminālprocesa nodošanu tiesai ). The case-file was sent to Riga Regional Court.

On 22 May 2012 Riga Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to seventeen years ’ imprisonment, three years ’ police control and ordered confiscation of property.

On 31 May 2013 the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. However, upon repeated requests by the applicant, the following objects and documents were excluded from the evidence relied on by the first-instance court for the purposes of the applicant ’ s conviction: the record of the inspection of the applicant ’ s car ( automa šīnas apskates protokols ), the objects and documents seized therein ( apskates laik ā izņemtie priekšmeti un dokumenti ) and their inspection record ( mantu apskates protokols ). The Criminal Cases Chamber relied on sections 159 (1) and (2), 160 (3), 179 (1) and 180 of the Criminal Procedure Law and found that, in actual fact, during the inspection of the applicant ’ s car a search, not a (visual) inspection, was carried out in breach of the relevant domestic provisions pertaining to inspections. Moreover, the search of the applicant ’ s car was carried out in breach of section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Law pertaining to searches. The evidence obtained therefrom was accordingly declared inadmissible.

On 20 September 2013 the applicant asked the prosecuting authorities that criminal proceedings be instituted against those police officers who were involved in the search of his car. He did not ask that the unlawfully seized material be returned to him.

On 2 October 2013 the Internal Security Bureau of the State Police ( Valsts policijas Iekšējās drošības birojs ) examined the applicant ’ s request and replied that no ancillary decision under the section 533 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law had been made by the court. Accordingly, the State Police had no legal grounds to examine investigative activities undertaken by its officers during the pre-trial investigation. The applicant was informed that he could enquire with the Chairperson of the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court. The applicant did not do so.

On 22 November 2013 the Senate of the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court ’ s ruling and adopted a final decision in the applicant ’ s criminal case.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provision relating to searches under the Criminal Procedure Law has been described in Nagla v. Latvia (no. 73469/10, § 36, 16 July 2013).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the search of his car on 24 February 2011, which was declared unlawful in the criminal proceedings against him.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In view of the ruling of the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court, may the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?

2. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in relation to his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention?

3. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Vladimir Polishchuk and Svetlana Polishchuk v. Ukraine , no. 12451/04 , §§ 45-8, 30 September 2010) ?