European Court of Human Rights
31 July 2007
Facts
The applicant accompanied a woman he was representing to the courthouse to obtain a copy of the record of a hearing held in her civil case. However, Judge M.J., who had examined the case, refused to give them the document concerned and ordered them to leave her office. She reported the applicant for a regulatory offence and sent an explanatory note to Judge K.S. The following day Judge K.S. ordered the applicant to be summoned, to determine whether he had been guilty of contempt of court. However, the applicant did not find out about this until a few days later. He immediately went to see Judge K.S. and asked to see and make copies of the documents in the case file, to help him prepare his defence. The request was refused at first, then accepted the following day. Judge A.P. examined the merits of the accusation against the applicant, who requested – in vain – that the judge who had reported him be summoned to the hearing. The applicant was sentenced to 3 days' administrative detention for contempt of court.
Complaint
The applicant alleged that the proceedings breached the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention. He further complained, under Article 2 of Protocol No 7 to the Convention, of the absence in Latvian law of a remedy by which to challenge his conviction.
Court’s ruling
The Court noted no grounds for questioning the subjective or objective impartiality of judge A.P., who had convicted him, had been adduced. Judge K.S. had eventually allowed the applicant to consult his file and make copies free of charge 2 days before the hearing. This would have given him enough time to prepare his defence.
Concerning the judge’s refusal to summon her colleague and allow the applicant to question her, the colleague concerned had drafted a report describing the events which had led to the applicant’s conviction. The report in question had not been the only item of evidence at the origin of the conviction. To exercise the right to question witnesses, the accused must clearly request it, which he had not done in this case. All things considered, the disputed proceedings could not be said to have been unfair. The Court found no violation of Article 6.
However, the court found a violation of Article 2 (2) of Protocol No 7 considering an offence for which imprisonment is the principal penalty prescribed by law could not be qualified as minor. This has been ruled by the Latvian Constitutional Court as well.