Information Note on the Court’s case-law 236

January 2020

Vinks and Ribicka v. Latvia - 28926/10

Judgment 30.1.2020 [Section V]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Early morning raid by special police unit at applicants’ home to carry out a search in the context of economic crimes, without safeguards against abuse: violation

Facts – The applicant couple were the subject of a police search at their ho me involving a special anti-terrorist unit in the context of economic crimes: armed officers of the “Omega” special intervention police unit entered the applicants’ home through the windows, followed by the finance police (VID FPP) who carried out the sear ch.

The applicants complained, inter alia , that the search and the recourse to a special intervention unit had no factual justification but an ulterior, retaliatory purpose, in connection with the fact that the first applicant had formerly been a witness in criminal proceedings against two allegedly corrupt officers of the finance police.

Law – Article 8: A risk of abuse of authority and violation of human dignity was inherent in a situation such as the one in issue, not only because the intrusion into the applicants’ private space had been severe (see below), but also because the request for the impugned intervention by the anti-terrorist unit had emanated from colleagues of the officers who were under investigation for corruption-related offences. The fir st applicant had testified against those officers and it was the same (finance) police unit that had carried out the search. There therefore had to be safeguards against such a risk.

For the following reasons, due to the lack of such safeguards in the pre sent case, the impugned interference could not be regarded as proportionate to the aim pursued.

(a) Failures in the review process of the search – None of the safeguards enshrined in domestic law appeared to have ensured effective protection to the applic ants. Such safeguards were:

(i) Prior judicial scrutiny – The finance police’s request for authorisation of the search had been based on a suspicion that the first applicant had been involved in a large-scale tax-evasion and money-laundering scheme involving more than six dozen companies. That suspicion had be en based on the criminal case material, and the criminal proceedings themselves had been preceded by an operational investigation into those facts.

The first applicant’s main argument was that he had not been connected to any of the companies involved in t he suspected offences. The Court was not in a position to determine whether this stance was well-founded. Yet, the criminal investigation that was open against the first applicant had been pending for more than ten years in the pre-trial stage before the v ery police unit that carried out the search.

Admittedly, the investigating judge had reviewed the case material presented to him. However, he had not indicated those factors which linked the first applicant to the companies under investigation. In its rev iew, the president of the relevant court did not address the concerns specifically raised by the first applicant in that respect.

(ii) Subsequent review by prosecutors – While prosecutors at different levels of the hierarchy had examined on several occasions the case material and had requested additional information from the different police authorities involved, they largely relied on the conclusions provided by those very authorities whose actions they were supposed to review, and found that the assistance of the special police unit had been justified and that the Omega officers had acted in accordance with internal regulations and “taking into account the circumstance s”.

In the absence of reasons given in response to specific allegations made by the applicants and any further information, the prosecutorial review of the special police unit’s assistance had not ensured effective protection in the present case.

(b) Lac k of a framework for the involvement of the special police unit – The assistance of the Omega anti-terrorism unit had been requested by the finance police as part of a larger operation. However, while that operation involved nineteen simultaneous searches, the assistance of those specially trained and armed men was requested only for two searches, one of which was of the applicants’ home.

Only weighty reasons could justify such a serious intrusion into the applicants’ private space as forced entry by break ing through the windows into the applicants’ home with use of restraint measures and guns on the applicants and on the second applicant’s teenage daughter in the early hours of the morning.

It was not for the Court to second-guess the elements relied on t o justify the necessity of the involvement of the Omega anti-terrorism unit in the search of the applicants’ home. Yet, among the alleged factors, the suspected presence of several armed individuals or guard dogs on the premises or discovery of firearms du ring the search appeared to have been either unsubstantiated or in fact related to another suspect.

Admittedly, the involvement of special police units may have been considered necessary in certain circumstances. However, a mere reference to general provi sions regulating coordination between various State authorities or to the internal regulations of the Omega anti-terrorism unit to the extent that it provided assistance to law-enforcement authorities in difficulties did not suffice, in the eye of the Cour t, to establish a legal framework capable of offering adequate and effective safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness.

Such safeguards might include the adoption of regulatory measures which both confined the use of special forces to situations where ord inary police intervention could not be regarded as safe and sufficient and prescribed additional guarantees (see and compare Kučera v. Slovakia , 48666/99, 17 July 2007, Information Note 99 ).

Conclusi on : violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 1,500 to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage; second applicant’s claims for pecuniary damage dismissed.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes