Case of European Court of Human Rights, September 05, 2019 (case ANDERSONE v. LATVIA)

Defense:LATVIA
Resolution Date:September 05, 2019
SUMMARY

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

 
FREE EXCERPT

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF ANDERSONE v. LATVIA

(Application no. 301/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 September 2019

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Andersone v. Latvia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

André Potocki, President,Mārtiņš Mits,Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,

and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 July 2019,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in an application (no. 301/12) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Latvian national, Ms Tatjana Andersone (“the applicant”), on 7 December 2011.

  2. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce.

  3. On 2 April 2014 notice of the complaint concerning the length of proceedings was given to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

    THE FACTS

  4. The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Kalnciems.

  5. On 11 October 1999 the applicant lodged a defamation claim against two police officers and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Judges of two district courts recused themselves from the case. On 10 February 2000 the Bauska District Court received the case and began the examination.

  6. On 22 November 2001 the proceedings were suspended so that the applicant could obtain an expert opinion. On 4 February 2002 the Bauska District Court invited the applicant to fulfil her obligation to cover the expenses and submit a voice sample, which was needed for the experts to carry out an assessment. On 25 May 2002 the Bauska District Court requested the applicant to provide information as to whether those duties had been complied with. It also noted that this delay was protracting the examination of the case. On 1 June 2002 the applicant informed the court about her difficulties in paying approximately 150 Latvian lati (LVL), (approximately 213 euros (EUR)), required for the expert opinion and explained that she needed more time to collect the money. The voice sample was submitted on 19 August 2003 and the expert opinion was obtained on 10 September 2003. On 29 January 2004 the Bauska District Court resumed the examination of the case.

  7. In the meantime, on 20 January 2004 the applicant amended her initial claim by increasing the amount of the compensation requested. As a result, the jurisdiction of the dispute changed and on 29 January 2004 the case was sent to the Riga Regional Court for a fresh examination sitting as a first-instance court.

  8. By a judgment of 7 March 2007 the Riga Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. That judgment was...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL