Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

CASE OF BLUMBERGA v. LATVIACONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE ZIEMELE

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: October 14, 2008

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF BLUMBERGA v. LATVIACONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE ZIEMELE

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: October 14, 2008

Cited paragraphs only

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE ZIEMELE

I voted with the majority that in the circumstances of the case there was no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1. Indeed, where the applicant did not try to bring separate civil proceedings against the suspects identified in both burglaries it is difficult for the Court to speculate on the character of this remedy and the compliance of the State with its obligations under the Convention (see also Diāna Plotiņa v. Latvia ( dec .), no. 16825/02, 3 June 2008).

Nevertheless, it has to be underlined that the Court pointed out that Article 1 of Protocol No.1 entails the responsibility of the State to ensure that a proper and adequate criminal investigation of burglaries is carried out and that the authorities involved act in a competent and efficient manner (see paragraph 69 of the judgment). However, the State will only fail to fulfil this positive obligation if the lack of prospects of success of civil proceedings, as the case may be, is the direct consequence of exceptionally serious and flagrant deficiencies in the conduct of criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 69 and 70). Because civil proceedings were not initiated we do not know whether the prospects of success in civil proceedings had been frustrated by the length of and deficiencies in the criminal proceedings.

However, it is to be noted that in this case the investigation into the burglary in Dobele , which began more than thirteen years ago, is still ongoing, while the proceedings concerning the burglary in Jelgava were terminated more than ten years later. This indicates some serious problems that the police and the prosecution office in Latvia have to address, even if they may not always lead to finding a violation under the Convention. This is even more so as concerns property rights, since both the old Criminal Procedure Code and the new 2005 Criminal Procedure Law place important obligations on the relevant institutions concerning the protection of the property of individuals where the need arises while their liberty is restricted.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 400211 • Paragraphs parsed: 44892118 • Citations processed 3448707