Published on 18 September 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 9327/23 A.S. against Latvia lodged on 17 February 2023 communicated on 28 August 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged failure by the domestic authorities to put in place an adequate legal framework that prohibits and punishes forced or compulsory labour, servitude and slavery and to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations in that regard.

From 7 December 2016 to 4 May 2017 the applicant, who was sixty years’ old at that time, was living and working in a farm, but she was not paid any wages. She was responsible for looking after cattle in the farm. She alleges that living and working conditions were unsatisfactory (e.g. living quarters near cattle, no hot water, gas or heating, long working hours, no wages paid), that there was an element of coercion and that she was exploited. However, owing to her state of health, limited cognitive skills, and vulnerability she could not understand that she was exploited at that time.

Eventually, criminal proceedings (no. 11815003517) were instituted for human trafficking for the purpose of exploitation and holding a person in servitude ( turēšana kalpībā ), the applicant was recognised as a victim. By a final decision of 25 October 2022, the domestic courts acquitted the alleged perpetrator.

The applicant complains under Article 4 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is Article 4 of the Convention applicable in the present case? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to “servitude” within the meaning of Article 4 § 1 of the Convention or “forced or compulsory labour” within the meaning of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention (see C.N. and V. v. France , no. 67724/09, § 91, 11 October 2012; and Zoletic and Others v. Azerbaijan , no. 20116/12, §§ 146-57, 7 October 2021)?

2. Has the State complied with its positive obligation to put in place a legislative and administrative framework to prohibit and punish forced or compulsory labour and/or servitude in the present case (see Siliadin v. France , no. 73316/01, § 89, ECHR 2005-VII; and C.N. and V. v. France , cited above, § 105)?

3. Has the State complied with its procedural obligation to investigate allegations of forced or compulsory labour and/or servitude in the present case (see C.N. v. the United Kingdom , no. 4239/08, § 69, 13 November 2012; and Zoletic and Others , cited above, §§ 185-191)?