BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
50950/06
Diana VAN DEILENA
against Latvia
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
15 May 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ján
Šikuta,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 17 November 2006,
Having
regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and
the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
applicant, Mrs Diāna van Deilena, is a Latvian national who was
born in 1975. According to the information provided by the applicant,
she lives in the Valka district.
A. The circumstances of the case
- The
facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as
follows.
1. Pre-trial investigation
- On 31 October 2001 a public prosecutor
dismissed a request submitted by B.D.V. to institute criminal
proceedings against the applicant, who had allegedly abused her
powers as a bailiff.
- B.D.V.
appealed against the decision to the Prosecutor General. She also
complained to the Head of the Clemency Board of the Chancery of the
President Member of Parliament and to a member of parliament. The
latter subsequently contacted the Prosecutor General, asking him to
pay particular attention to the appeal.
- On
21 February 2002 a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s
Office initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant in
response to B.D.V’s complaint.
- On
24 January 2003 public prosecutor S.G. charged the
applicant with abuse of her position as a bailiff.
- On
12 November 2003 the same prosecutor finished drafting the bill
of indictment (apsūdzības raksts) in the applicant’s
case.
- On 19 November 2003 the criminal case was transferred
to Rīga Ziemeļu District Court for adjudication.
2. Public statements of the State officials
- Information
concerning the pre-trial investigation in the applicant’s
criminal case appeared in a number of articles published in various
Latvian newspapers and was broadcast on the radio and television
before the first-instance court proceedings. According to the
applicant, public statements made by public prosecutor D.K.V. on
26 February 2002, by prosecutors S.G. and D.K.V. on
3 February 2004, and by the judge of the Ziemeļu
District Court, N.R., and prosecutor D.K.V. on 6 July 2004
had undermined her right to be presumed innocent.
3. The trial and postponement of the execution of
sentence owing to the applicant’s state of health
- On 30 September 2004 the applicant was found
guilty of having abused her position as a bailiff and of fraud, and
sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment. She was
arrested in the courtroom.
- The
applicant appealed against the lower court’s judgment and
requested, inter alia, that the preventive measure imposed on
her pending the appeal proceedings be changed. The applicant
indicated that she had suffered from bronchial asthma since childhood
and therefore required special medication and adequate nutrition and
living conditions, needs which would not be met in detention.
- On 11 November 2004 the Rīga Regional
Court lifted the detention order pending the outcome of the appeal.
- On
19 December 2005 the Rīga Regional Court upheld the
judgment of the first-instance court and ordered the applicant’s
imprisonment. The court noted that although the applicant’s
state of health was to be regarded as a mitigating circumstance, it
did not warrant changing the sentence to a more lenient one.
- On
22 May 2006 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court
dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
- On
28 July 2006 the applicant applied to the Ziemeļu
District Court, requesting postponement of the execution of the
prison sentence due to her poor state of health.
- Between
14 and 25 August 2006 the applicant was hospitalised. She
was diagnosed as suffering, inter alia, from persistent
bronchial asthma of moderate severity, emphysema and dermatitis.
Medical treatment was recommended.
- On 16 August 2006 the Ziemeļu District
Court established that since 14 August 2006 the applicant
has been hospitalised because of the exacerbation of her bronchial
asthma, and postponed the execution of the sentence until the
applicant’s discharge from hospital.
- The
applicant appealed against the decision, arguing that her state of
health had deteriorated and that it would be necessary to continue
rehabilitation and physical therapy even after her discharge from the
hospital.
- On
8 September 2006 the Rīga Regional Court examined the
applicant’s ancillary complaint. The public prosecutor
participating in the hearing stated that the applicant had suffered
from bronchial asthma since birth, and that, according to him,
although the illness could not be completely cured it would be
possible to provide the applicant with the recommended inhalation
treatment and medication in prison.
- The
court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, establishing that
the applicant had been discharged from hospital on 25 August 2006
and that there was no evidence that her state of health would
preclude the execution of the sentence. It also noted that the
applicant had not claimed that she could not receive the recommended
medication in prison.
- On
17 October 2006 the applicant requested that the Ziemeļu
District Court postpone the execution of the sentence because of a
rehabilitation course she had to undergo between 23 November and
23 December 2006.
- On
13 November 2006 the Ziemeļu District Court dismissed
the request.
- From
23 November to 23 December 2006 the applicant underwent the
planned rehabilitation course.
- On
11 January 2007 the applicant started serving her sentence in
Iļğuciema Prison.
4. The applicant’s account on the conditions of
detention and medical assistance in Iļģuciema Prison
(a) Detention between 30 September 2004
and 11 November 2004
- In
her initial complaint of 17 November 2006 the applicant
alleged that during the period from 30 September 2004 until
11 November 2004 she spent in Iļģuciema Prison
pending trial (see paragraphs 10 and 12 above), her state of health
had deteriorated due to the poor detention conditions and absence of
adequate medical assistance.
(b) Imprisonment from January 2007 to January
2008
- From
January to May 2007 the applicant was detained in Iļģuciema
Prison under a partly closed imprisonment regime.
- In
her complaint of 26 February 2007 the applicant described
her cell as small, insufficiently ventilated and dusty. She alleged
that as a result in addition to two types of asthma medication she
also had to take other medication on a daily basis, such as
painkillers for headaches. Intensive use of her inhaler had had an
adverse effect on her already ailing stomach.
- As
to access to emergency medical assistance, the applicant noted that
when another detainee had called for emergency help, it had arrived
only after an hour. The applicant was thus not sure whether the same
would happen to her.
- The
applicant further stated that the doctor was available only once a
week on appointment.
- As
to the access to medication, the applicant submitted that she had had
to wait two weeks to receive a gel for back pain. Since medication
was distributed by the medical personnel twice a day, at 10 a.m. and
6 p.m., and had to be used immediately, the applicant had problems in
following the doctor’s recommendations that she take her
medication before or after meals. She also complained that she did
not have access to physiotherapy, and that she could not follow the
principles of ergonomics owing to the lack of appropriate furniture
in her cell.
- On 29 March 2007, after the applicant’s
complaint had been communicated to the Government, the applicant’s
husband wrote on behalf of the applicant to inform the Court that the
applicant wished to complain about the fact that she had not been
separated from her fellow inmates. He also referred to a letter she
had sent him in which she mentioned that her back pain and asthma had
worsened, but that over the last few weeks the prison medical
personnel had been trying to take care of her. In particular, she was
visiting the doctor on a weekly basis and had received vitamin
injections in order to ease her back pain. She had also received
herbal treatment to avoid excessive use of her inhalers, and was
receiving additional pills for asthma on a weekly basis.
- On 21 December 2007, in reply to the
Government’s observations, the applicant submitted further
information which, according to her, demonstrated the poor quality of
medical assistance in prison. The applicant stated that once a week
she could visit the head doctor and a general practitioner, but that
the latter had left the office in September 2007. She further
contended that the doctors had done nothing to prevent her from
increasing the use of inhalers, and that her lungs had only been
checked a couple months after her arrival. She admitted having
refused to have an x-ray because she had had two before her
imprisonment. The applicant also referred to the fact that if she
wished to consult a doctor of her choice in Iļģuciema
Prison, it would take about two months to arrange.
- The applicant admitted that the medical unit of
Iļģuciema Prison had some medication and vitamins, and that
she received several types of medicine for asthma. She complained,
however, that the purchase of medication was a lengthy procedure and
therefore she usually purchased hers in advance; however due to the
above procedure once she had had to wait several weeks to have a
regular injection of vitamin B. She also mentioned that even though
the head doctor had authorised the purchase of food supplements in
May 2007 she had only obtained them in October 2007, when tests
carried out outside the prison showed that she was hepatitis C
positive. With respect to the latter condition, the applicant noted
that in accordance with the instructions of her doctor, she was
taking special medication and refraining from using painkillers.
- She also complained that her medical card did not
contain complete records of the medication she had received from the
nurses of the prison medical unit, such as painkillers and medication
for an allergy.
- The applicant further contended that she had had to
resolve the problem of a worn out bed herself by obtaining a wooden
plank from her fellow inmate, and that she did not go on her daily
walks because she was afraid of the other inmates who, according to
her, considered her as a member of the law-enforcement institutions.
- In
May 2007 the applicant was transferred to a more lenient regime in
Iļģuciema Prison and in January 2008 she was transferred to
the Vecumnieki open prison. It appears that in August 2008, at the
latest, she was released from prison.
The Government’s account of the conditions and medical
assistance in Iļģuciema Prison
(a) Medical treatment during imprisonment
- Relying on the information provided by the Prison
Authority, the applicant’s cell, which she shared with another
inmate, measured 7.95 sq m. The cell was renovated five years ago,
and provided access to daylight, ventilation and toilet facilities.
The applicant had an hour of outdoor exercise a day. On 30 May 2007
the applicant was transferred to another regime under which time
outside was not limited and she had access to an equipped gym.
- Pursuant
to the information provided by the Prison Authority, the applicant
could make an appointment with any of the prison doctors (two
generalists, a gynaecologist, a psychiatrist, an ear, nose and throat
specialist and a dentist) once a week. For emergencies the doctors
were on call from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and medical
personnel were on duty in the prison twenty-four hours a day.
- According
to the medical records kept during the applicant’s imprisonment
in Iļģuciema Prison (which at the time of submitting the
Government’s observations had lasted almost five months) the
applicant had been examined by the prison doctors eighteen times; on
fifteen of those occasions she was examined at her own request.
Throughout her stay the applicant had had all the necessary
medication for her bronchial asthma, and had had her own inhaler.
(b) MADEKKI reports
- At the Government Agent’s request, on
14 May 2007 the Inspectorate for Quality Control of Medical
Care and Working Capability (“the MADEKKI”) assessed the
adequacy of the medical assistance in Iļģuciema Prison. The
conclusion stated that the inmates could have consultations with
various certified medical doctors according to a schedule, and that
the assistance of certified medical personnel was available
twenty-four hours a day, including a certified nurse specialised in
respiratory diseases. In cases of necessity inmates were admitted to
a public hospital, and they could receive out-patient medical
treatment at the medical unit of the prison. The latter was certified
and supplied with the necessary medication.
- From 13 May to 1 June 2007 the MADEKKI
assessed the adequacy of the applicant’s medical treatment in
Iļģuciema Prison. The MADEKKI report noted that the
applicant suffered from moderate asthma, the treatment of which did
not require permanent medical supervision. It also noted that, if
necessary, the applicant could receive medical assistance in the
medical unit of the prison, which was supplied with the necessary
medication, including for bronchial asthma. The report concluded that
the applicant’s medical treatment in Iļģuciema Prison
had been adequate, and that treatment had been prescribed according
to objective assessment of the applicant’s health. The
conclusion of the report was not contested.
6. Other medical records
- In September/October 2007 the applicant had a week’s
leave from Iļģuciema Prison during which she underwent
various out-patient medical examinations, including a comprehensive
blood test and a tomography, and consulted her practitioner and
neurologist. A CT analysis showed that the applicant had a spinal
disc hernia. She was prescribed various medicines and physiotherapy.
She was also diagnosed as hepatitis C positive.
7. Conclusions of the Ombudsman’s Office
- In letters of 5 and 23 February 2007
the applicant asked for the assistance of the Ombudsman’s
Office in obtaining a transfer to an open-type prison. The applicant
contended that as a former bailiff she was entitled to separation
from other inmates, but that in Iļģuciema Prison she could
not avoid contact with other prisoners during walks, while shopping
at the prison shop, during workshops and doing laundry or other
activities.
- On the basis of that complaint the Ombudsman’s
Office launched an investigation in the framework of which he
requested information from Iļģuciema Prison and arranged
for a representative from the Office to visit the prison. On
14 August 2007 the Ombudsman informed the applicant that
there were sufficient safeguards in place concerning the security of
inmates in the prison, and that the applicant’s health and life
were not under threat.
B. Relevant domestic law
- Pursuant
to section 638(1) of the Law on Criminal Procedure (Kriminālprocesa
likums), if deprivation of liberty has been imposed on a
convicted person who has fallen ill with a serious condition that
hinders the execution of a sentence, a court may suspend it until he
or she recovers.
- Regulation
of the Cabinet of Ministers no. 77 of 19 February 2002 on compulsory
requirements regarding medical establishments and their units
(Noteikumi par obligātajām prasībām
ārstniecības iestādēm un to struktūrvienībām)
includes general and specific requirements that hospitals and other
medical facilities have to meet concerning, inter alia,
premises, medical equipment, and the training and qualifications
of medical personnel.
C. Relevant parts of the CPT reports in relation to
Iļģuciema Prison
- The report of 22 November 2001 to the
Latvian Government on the visit to Latvia carried out by the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment (“the CPT”) from 24 January to
3 February 1999 provides the following:
“4. Iļģuciema Prison
...
122. The material conditions of sentenced prisoners, who
were located in Blocks 1 and 2, could be considered as globally
acceptable. The prisoners were accommodated in well-equipped
dormitories measuring from 24 to 40 m², holding from 4 to 12
persons each. Access to natural light, artificial lighting,
ventilation and heating were adequate. Moreover, as a rule, the
dormitories were in a satisfactory state of repair and cleanliness.
Prisoners had easy access to outside toilets and showers, and had at
their disposal a small kitchenette where they could prepare their own
meals. Although of a relatively outdated design and presenting some
signs of wear-and-tear, the detention units gave a pleasant - even
homely - impression, with many plants and colourful decorations.
123. The regime of activities varied slightly according
to the category to which the prisoners concerned belonged (based on
the length of the sentence). Differences consisted essentially in the
degree of freedom of movement and access to privileges, such as
extended visiting time. However, all prisoners benefited from a wide
range of activities - sport in the well-equipped gym, education
(tailors vocational school programme, Latvian and English courses,
and a computer class), games, TV room, library”.
48. The
report of 15 December 2009 to the Latvian Government on the
visit to Latvia carried out by the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (“the
CPT”) from 27 November to 7 December 2007 notes:
“73. At the outset, the CPT welcomes the fact that
the old Prison hospital on the premises of Rīga Central Prison
has been withdrawn from service, following the opening of a new
Prison hospital at Olaine on 1 August 2007. Further, it
wishes to place on record the good quality of the health-care
services provided to female prisoners at Iļģuciema Prison
(including to mothers and their children)”.
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained that her detention between 30 September and
11 November 2004 was contrary to the requirements of Articles 3
and 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
- The
applicant complained that her imprisonment, having regard to her
state of health and the current situation in Latvian prisons as
regards medical assistance, was contrary to the requirements of
Article 3 of the Convention. She expressed concern that her state of
health would deteriorate, as was the case after her detention between
30 September and 11 November 2004 in Iļģuciema Prison.
She
further complained that as a public bailiff she was not separated
from other prisoners in Iļģuciema Prison.
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that
she was deprived of a fair trial.
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that
several State officials, including those who were involved in
the adjudication of her case, made public statements concerning the
criminal proceedings before the court hearing. She also complained
that a member of parliament and the Head of the Clemency Board of the
Chancery of the President of Latvia had interfered with the work of
the public prosecutors and the pre-trial investigation in the
framework of the criminal proceedings against her.
THE LAW
A. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
- The
applicant’s complaint about the conditions and the quality of
medical treatment during her detention and imprisonment in Iļģuciema
Prison shall be examined under Article 3 which provides:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
1. The period of detention from 1 October 2004
until 11 November 2004
- In
her observations the applicant expressed concern that the Government
had not commented upon her complaint concerning the poor conditions
and insufficient quality of medical treatment during her detention in
2004. The applicant considered that thereby the Government was
leading the Court away from the main point of her complaint under
Article 3.
- The
Government argued that they had not been asked to comment on this
issue, and that in any case this part of the complaint would be found
inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 as submitted out
of time.
- The
Court has already concluded that in Latvia at the material time there
were no effective domestic remedies in relation to complaints about
conditions of detention (see Kadiķis v. Latvia (no. 2),
no. 62393/00, §§ 60 63, 4 May 2006;
Ņikitenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 62609/00, 11 May 2006),
and therefore the six-month period started to run from the act,
decision or event which is itself alleged to be in violation of the
Convention (see, among many others, Jordan v. the
United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30280/96, 14 January 1998).
- In
the present case the six-month period started running on 11 November
2004, when the Rīga Regional Court lifted the detention order,
whereas the applicant first lodged a complaint in this connection
more than six months later on 17 November 2006.
- In
the absence of any circumstances interrupting the running of the
six-month period the Court concludes that this complaint has been
submitted out of time and must be rejected in accordance with
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the
Convention.
2. Imprisonment from January 2007 to January 2008
- The
Government argued that during the criminal proceedings the domestic
courts had given the applicant’s health condition the highest
possible consideration, as a result of which the execution of her
sentence had been suspended twice. As concerns the detention
conditions in Iļģuciema Prison, the Government submitted
additional information and referred to the relevant parts of the CPT
report published in 2001 (see paragraph 47 above) and the
outcome of the MADEKKI reports (see paragraphs 40-41 above). In
connection with the alleged lack of medical assistance, the
Government emphasized the regularity with which the applicant had
received doctors’ consultations in prison and that it had been
possible to arrange consultations with other specialists in a public
hospital. According to the Government, the applicant failed to
demonstrate a causal link between her complaints that in Iļģuciema
Prison she had not received adequate medical care and that of the
alleged deterioration of her health. The Government noted that the
applicant had had all the health problems she complained of before
being imprisoned, has and that she had not alleged that she had been
infected with hepatitis C in prison. Lastly, the Government dismissed
any allegations concerning threats to the applicant’s safety in
prison by referring to the conclusions of the Ombudsman’s
Office (see paragraphs 43-44, above).
- The
applicant contested the Government’s observations by submitting
additional information (see paragraphs 32-35, above). She also
contested the CPT report of 2001, arguing that it fell short of
reflecting the actual conditions in Iļģuciema Prison.
- The
Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines an
absolute prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim’s
behaviour. Even though measures depriving a person of liberty may
often involve such an element, it cannot be said that the execution
of detention on remand in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of
the Convention (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §
93, ECHR 2000 XI).
- The
Court also reiterates that, in accordance with its case-law,
ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity in order to
fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, and that
the assessment of this minimum level depends on all the circumstances
of the case, such as the stringency of the measure complained of, its
duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person
concerned (ibid., § 91). Even though Article 3 does not lay
down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds,
the State must ensure that given the practical demands of
imprisonment the health and well-being of imprisoned persons are
adequately secured by, among other things, providing the requisite
medical assistance (ibid., § 93). The adequacy of the medical
assistance is examined by taking into account various elements, such
as, inter alia, timely diagnostics and treatment (see Melnik
v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006);
and, where necessary, regular and systematic supervision aimed at
preventing the aggravation of the prisoner’s health condition
(see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006,
and, more recently, Krivošejs v. Latvia, no. 45517/04,
§ 71, 17 January 2012).
- The
Court notes at the outset that the parties are in disagreement as to
the facts concerning the adequacy of the applicant’s medical
treatment in Iļģuciema Prison, and the impact the
conditions of her detention has had on her health. However, the Court
considers that in the circumstances of the case the divergences do
not have a crucial effect on its findings. The Court observes that
even if the applicant’s health condition in general was poor,
it does not derive from the medical records that it was of such a
nature that would require constant medical supervision (see paragraph
41 above; contrast to the factual situation in, for instance, Paladi
v. Moldova, no. 39806/05, § 81, 10 July 2007 and, more
recently, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 76,
4 October 2011. In both those cases, owing to their serious
diagnoses the applicants were advised to follow particular medical
recommendations and be supervised by a medical specialist). Even
without relying on the evidence submitted by the Government, it
derives from the information submitted essentially by the applicant
and her husband that the former was under the permanent supervision
of the medical staff of Iļģuciema Prison (see paragraph 31,
above), received medication (see paragraphs 33-34, above) and had the
possibility to arrange consultations with specialised practitioners
of her own choice (see paragraph 32, above), which she had used
during her leave from prison (see paragraph 42, above). The Court
does not observe that any of the applicant’s complaints
concerning her health have been neglected.
- The
fact that the applicant had to wait between a couple of weeks to
several months to receive certain products or services which were not
related to the treatment of asthma, such as physiotherapy, gel and
food supplements is, in the Court’s opinion and given the
particular circumstances of the case, acceptable in the light of the
practical demands of imprisonment (see Kudła, cited
above, § 93).
- As
to the overall adequacy of the medical unit of the Iļģuciema
Prison the Court refers to the CPT conclusions, which cover the
period of the applicant’s detention there (see paragraph 48,
above).
- In
the light of the above, the Court concludes that, taking into
consideration the manner in which the State authorities dealt with
the applicant’s health condition in Iļģuciema Prison,
she was not subjected to treatment reaching the level of severity
necessary for Article 3 of the Convention to be applied.
- This
part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must
be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
Complaint under Article 6 § 2
- The
applicant also complained that contrary to Article 6 § 2
of the Convention her right to be presumed innocent had been violated
by statements made in 2004 by various state officials, including two
public prosecutors involved in the criminal case against her and the
judge of the lower court. The relevant part of that provision reads
as follows:
“2. Everyone charged with a criminal
offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to
law”.
- The Government argued that the applicant failed to
exhaust domestic remedies by addressing the allegedly incriminating
statements of the judge in her appeals, and by bringing defamation
proceedings against the public prosecutors concerned. In the
alternative, they argued that the complaint in this connection was
submitted outside the six-month time-limit.
- The
applicant did not comment the Government’s argument that she
had failed to address this issue in her appeals. She argued that
bringing defamation proceedings should not be considered obligatory
for the purpose of exhausting domestic remedies and noted that she
had only found out about the public statements later, in 2004.
- The
Court reiterates that under Article 35 § 1 it may deal with a
matter only after all domestic remedies have been exhausted.
- Concerning
the statements of the judge, the materials of the case support the
Government’s allegation that the applicant did not raise in her
appeal or appeal on points of law the allegation that her right to be
presumed innocent was infringed by the statements of the judge.
Neither did she attempt to challenge the judge (contrary to the
factual situation in Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, §§
31-32, 28 November 2002). The Court observes that an appeal to a
higher court with full jurisdiction and power to quash the lower
court’s decision is in principle a remedy capable of putting
right deficiencies in criminal proceedings, including alleged bias on
the part of a judge (see Lebedev v. Russia (No.2) (dec.), no.
13772/05, 27 May 2010). The Court subsequently concludes
that this part of the complaint is inadmissible under Article 35 §§
1 and 4 of the Convention for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
- As for the public statements made by the prosecutors,
the Court is sceptical as to whether the possibility to institute
defamation proceedings against State officials, such as prosecutors,
constitutes an effective remedy (see Lebedev, cited above, §
256). It is especially so in the circumstances of the present case,
where the Court has not been provided with corresponding domestic
case-law in support of the Government’s allegation. In any
event the Court observes that the challenged statements were made in
2002 and 2004, and the applicant admitted that she had learnt of them
no later than 2004. The Court is not aware of any circumstances which
have interrupted the running of the six-month period, which has
expired in the middle of 2005, at the latest. Since the applicant
only lodged her application in 2006, it follows that the complaint in
this part is inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention as submitted out of time.
C. Other complaints
- The
applicant alleged other violations of Articles 3, 5 § 1
a) and 6 § 1 of the Convention.
- In
the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the
matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers
that the remainder of the application does not disclose any
appearance of a violation of any of the above Articles of the
Convention. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible and
must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3
and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Josep Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President
