FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 57566/12 YELVERTON INVESTMENTS B.V. and others against Latvia lodged on 3 September 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A list of the applicant companies is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. The applicant companies were, at the material time, 71.38 % share owners of a Latvian public limited company a/s “ Ventbunkers ” (the “Company”).

1. Civil proceedings

4. On 13 December 2011 the Ventspils Court ( Ventspils tiesa ) upheld the applicant companies ’ claim that the Company ’ s shareholders ’ meeting of 18 December 2009 had not legally taken place and declared void changes made during that meeting as regards the appointment of the supervisory board members. The court did not provide other reasons or any analysis in its judgment since the Company, being the respondent in these civil proceedings, had agreed to the applicant companies ’ claim.

5. No appeal was lodged against this judgment.

6. On 3 January 2012 this judgment took effect.

2. Supervisory review

7. On 23 March 2012 the Chairman of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court ( Augstākās tiesas Senāta Civillietu departamenta priekšsēdētājs ) submitted a protest against the 13 December 2011 judgment in accordance with section 483 of the Law of Civil Procedure on the grounds of substantive breaches of material and procedural legal provisions.

8. On 20 April 2012 the applicant companies filed their opinion.

9. On 26 April 2012 three judges, who had been determined by the Chairman of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court, accepted the protest for adjudication and initiated proceedings on points of law as regards the 13 December 2011 judgment.

10. On 23 May 2012 a hearing took place before the Senate of the Supreme Court. The applicant companies allege that during this hearing they requested that the judges, who had been determined by the Chairman of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court, withdraw from examining their case. The applicant companies submit that their request was rejected.

11. On 23 May 2012 the proceedings were stayed pending the determination of the applicant companies ’ constitutional complaint.

3. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

12. On 15 May 2012 the applicant companies lodged a joint individual constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Satversmes tiesa ). They alleged that sections 483, 484, 464(1) and 465(1) were not compatible with Article 92 (right to a fair trial) of the Constitution ( Satversme ).

13. On 8 June 2012 the Constitutional Court initiated proceedings as concerns the compatibility of section 483 with the Constitution, but rejected the remainder of the applicant companies ’ complaint. This decision was not subject to an appeal.

14. The proceedings before the Constitutional Court are currently pending. The applicant companies consider that the individual application to the Constitutional Court cannot be considered an effective remedy in their case.

B. Relevant domestic law

15. The relevant parts of the Law of Civil Procedure read as follows:

Section 483 - Submitting a Protest

“ A protest regarding a ruling that has taken effect may be submitted to the Senate [of the Supreme Court] by the President of the Supreme Court, by the Chairman of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court or by the prosecutor general, provided that no more than 10 years have passed since the ruling has taken effect. ”

Section 484 - Grounds for Submitting a Protest

“ The grounds for submitting a protest regarding a ruling that has taken effect are substantive breaches of material or procedural legal provisions in cases, which have been adjudicated only by a first-instance court, provided that no appeal has been lodged against the ruling by the parties to the case in accordance with law for reasons beyond their control or provided that the rights of State or municipal institutions or the rights of such persons who were not parties to the case are affected by the ruling. ”

Section 485 - Procedures for Adjudicating Protests

“ A protest shall be adjudicated by the Senate in accordance with the procedures prescribed in sections 464-477 of this Law. ”

Section 464 (1) Preparatory meeting by the Senate

“ A three-judge formation determined by the chairman of the relevant department in a preparatory meeting shall determine whether to accept for examination ... protests submitted to the Senate. ”

Section 465 (1) Adjudication by the Senate

“ [After the case has been accepted for adjudication] the chairman of the relevant department shall determine the time and the formation for its examination and he/she shall appoint the judge raporteur . The parties shall be informed about the time and place for adjudication. ”

COMPLAINTS

16. The applicant companies complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that not enough reasons had been given in the protest and that their request to judges to withdraw from examining their case had been rejected.

17. They further alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the principle of legal certainty because the protest had been submitted against the final judgment and that the author of the protest had himself determined the procedure for its examination by the Senate.

18. Relying on the same Article, the applicant companies submitted that the judges of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court were not impartial since the author of the protest was their Chairman. For the same reason, the applicant companies considered that the equality of arms had not been respected in so far as they were set to argue their case against the Chairman of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court.

19. Finally, the applicant companies considered that the State had exceeded its margin of appreciation in respect of the above-mentioned.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is Article 6 of the Convention applicable to the applicant companies ’ complaint in the circumstances of the present case?

2. Was the principle of legal certainty respected as regards the protest submitted by the Chairman of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court against the judgment of 13 December 2011?

3. Was the court which dealt with the applicant companies ’ case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the proceedings initiated upon the protest by the Chairman of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court.

4. Was the principle of equality of arms respected in the present case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the proceedings initiated upon the protest by the Chairman of the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court.

Appendix

No.

Applicant company name

Place of registration

YELVERTON INVESTMENTS B.V.

The Netherlands

IAG INDUSTRIEANLAGEN GMBH

Austria

SIA IAG

Latvia

YELVERTON INVESTMENT B.V.

The Netherlands