Latvia / Constitutional Court / 2021-44-01
-
Latvia / Constitutional Court / 2021-44-01
Key facts of the case:
Immovable property and funds owned by the applicants were seized in criminal proceedings concerning large-scale laundering of the proceeds of crime. During the investigation, the lead investigator initiated proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets – a special procedure under the Criminal Procedure Law that determines whether the assets had been obtained lawfully without determining the person’s guilt with respect to the predicate offence. The applicants’ assets were confiscated as being unlawfully obtained. The applicants brought constitutional proceedings challenging the fact that in the proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets, the judgment of the appellate court cannot be appealed further before the third level court (i.e., there is no appeal on points of law). They argued that this was incompatible with the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 92 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court stayed proceedings and referred the case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. By its judgment of 4 October 2024, 1Dream OÜ and Others v Latvijas Republikas Saeima, joined Cases C-767/22, C-49/23 and C-161/23, the CJEU concluded that the national legislation in question did not come within the scope of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property and Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union. Hence the specific procedural requirements included in those documents had no bearing to the national regulation at stake in the case.
Key legal question raised by the court:
The Constitutional Court was called to determine whether the legal regulation that did not provide for a right to lodge an appeal on points of law against a decision confiscating assets was compatible with Article 92 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to a fair trial.
Outcome of the case:
The Constitutional Court held that the proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets fell under the civil limb, rather than criminal limb of the fair trial guarantees, as provided by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Having noted the finding of the CJEU that the regulation in question does not come within the scope of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property and Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union, the Constitutional Court concluded that the proceedings in question were nonetheless covered by Article 47 of the Charter and Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders. Relying on Article 52(3) of the Charter it also noted that scope of the rights guaranteed by the Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights was the same.
The Constitutional Court then emphasised that proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets were distinct form the criminal proceedings determining the person’s guilt. They were separated from the main criminal proceedings for a specific purpose – timely resolution of property issues arising in criminal proceedings in the interests of procedural economy. The Constitutional Court considered that the procedural guarantees enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Law with respect to the proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets were sufficient to ensure the fairness of such proceedings. Neither from Article 92 of the Constitution, nor from Latvia’s international obligations emanated an obligation to ensure a further appeal on points of law of the appellate court’s judgment taken in such proceedings. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court found the contested legal regulation compliant with Article 92 of the Constitution.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
16. The first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution stipulates: “Everyone may defend their rights and lawful interests in a fair court.”
16.1. The applicants consider that the contested provision does not comply with the right to a fair trial enshrined in the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution. Namely, the applicants are denied the right to review the legality of the regional court's decision, which for the first time recognized their property as criminally acquired and confiscated it, because, according to the contested provision, such a regional court decision is not subject to appeal.
The contested provision is part of the legal regulation of the proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets set out in Chapter 59 of the Criminal Procedure Law. In proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets, the guarantees of the right to a fair trial apply to persons connected with such property (see paragraph 10 of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 23 May 2017 in Case No. 2016-13-01). A fair trial as a proper, rule of law-compliant procedure comprises several interrelated rights, including the right to appeal (cf. Constitutional Court judgment of 8 March 2017 in Case No. 2016-07-01, paragraph 28.1).
The Constitutional Court, referring to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, has repeatedly held that in proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets, Article 6 of the Convention applies to a person connected with the property in its civil law aspect (see, for example, paragraph 19.2 of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 19 February 2025 in Case No. 2022-01-01). Thus, the requirement set out in Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention to ensure that a conviction may be appealed in at least one instance does not apply to the aforementioned proceedings. With regard to Article 6 of the Convention, its application in civil matters, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights indicates that it does not impose an obligation on Member States to establish courts of cassation or appeal in all cases, but that if such courts are established, they must comply with Article 6 of the Convention in their operation (see, for example, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 17 January 1970 in the case of Delcourt v. Belgium, application No. 2689/65, paragraphs 25-26).
The applicants argue that the compatibility of the contested provision with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution should be assessed in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, Article 8(1) and (6) of Directive 2014/42/EU, and Article 4 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA. However, the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that national legislation such as that contained in the contested provision does not fall within the scope of Directive 2014/42/EU and Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA (see paragraph 89 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 October 2024 in joined cases C-767/22, C-49/23 and C-161/23, 1Dream and Others). The provisions on proceedings concerning criminally obtained property contained in Chapter 59 regulates proceedings concerning criminally obtained property, Article 47 of the Charter and Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders apply. When assessing the constitutionality of the contested provision, it should also be taken into account that, in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 52(3) of the Charter, the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Convention and stemming from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States are to be regarded as general principles of European Union law, and the meaning and scope of the rights guaranteed by the Convention and included in the Charter are the same as those laid down in the Convention (see Constitutional Court judgment of 19 February 2025 in Case No. 2022-01-01, paragraph 19.3).
Thus, in the case under review, the Constitutional Court will examine the compliance of the contested norm with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution in conjunction with the requirements set out in Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6(1) of the Convention in its civil law aspect.
…
19. Taking into account all of the above, it can be concluded that proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets are proceedings that are separated from the main criminal proceedings for a specific purpose – the timely resolution of property issues arising in criminal proceedings in the interests of procedural economy. Neither the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution, nor Latvia's binding international obligations in the field of human rights require that a regional court's decision in proceedings concerning criminally acquired property could be appealed to a higher court. A person in proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets, including in a regional court that is examining a complaint or protest against a district (city) court decision on criminally acquired property, is guaranteed a fair trial.
Consequently, the contested provision complies with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
16. Satversmes 92. panta pirmais teikums nosaka: „Ikviens var aizstāvēt savas tiesības un likumiskās intereses taisnīgā tiesā.”
16.1. Pieteikumu iesniedzēji uzskata, ka apstrīdētā norma neatbilst Satversmes 92. panta pirmajā teikumā ietvertajām tiesībām uz taisnīgu tiesu. Proti, Pieteikumu iesniedzējiem esot liegtas tiesības pārbaudīt tāda apgabaltiesas lēmuma tiesiskumu, ar kuru viņiem piederošā manta pirmo reizi atzīta par noziedzīgi iegūtu un konfiscēta, jo saskaņā ar apstrīdēto normu šāds apgabaltiesas lēmums nav pārsūdzams.
Apstrīdētā norma ir daļa no Kriminālprocesa likuma 59. nodaļā noteiktā procesa par noziedzīgi iegūtu mantu tiesiskā regulējuma. Procesā par noziedzīgi iegūtu mantu uz personu, kas saistīta ar šo mantu, ir attiecināmas tiesību uz taisnīgu tiesu garantijas (sk. Satversmes tiesas 2017. gada 23. maija sprieduma lietā Nr. 2016-13-01 10. punktu). Taisnīga tiesa kā pienācīgs, tiesiskai valstij atbilstošs tiesas process aptver vairākas savstarpēji saistītas tiesības, tostarp arī tiesības uz pārsūdzību (sal.: Satversmes tiesas 2017. gada 8. marta sprieduma lietā Nr. 2016-07-01 28.1. punkts).
Satversmes tiesa, atsaucoties uz Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas judikatūru, jau vairākkārt atzinusi, ka procesā par noziedzīgi iegūtu mantu uz personu, kas saistīta ar mantu, ir attiecināms Konvencijas 6. pants tā darbības civiltiesiskajā aspektā (sk., piemēram, Satversmes tiesas 2025. gada 19. februāra sprieduma lietā Nr. 2022-01-01 19.2. punktu). Tādējādi uz minēto procesu neattiecas Konvencijas 7. protokola 2. pantā noteiktā prasība nodrošināt notiesājoša sprieduma pārsūdzību vismaz vienā instancē. Attiecībā uz Konvencijas 6. pantu tā darbības civiltiesiskajā aspektā Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas judikatūrā norādīts, ka tas neuzliek pienākumu dalībvalstīm visos gadījumos izveidot kasācijas vai apelācijas instances tiesas, tomēr tad, ja šādas tiesas tiek izveidotas, tām savā darbībā jāievēro Konvencijas 6. pants (sk., piemēram, Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas 1970. gada 17. janvāra sprieduma lietā „Delcourt v. Belgium”, pieteikums Nr. 2689/65, 25.–26. punktu).
Pieteikumu iesniedzēji norāda, ka apstrīdētās normas atbilstība Satversmes 92. panta pirmajam teikumam būtu vērtējama kopsakarā ar Hartas 47. pantu, Direktīvas 2014/42/ES 8. panta 1. un 6. punktu, kā arī Pamatlēmuma 2005/212/TI 4. pantu. Tomēr Eiropas Savienības Tiesa ir atzinusi, ka Direktīvas 2014/42/ES un Pamatlēmuma 2005/212/TI piemērošanas jomā neietilpst tāds valsts tiesiskais regulējums, kāds ietverts apstrīdētajā normā (sk. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2024. gada 4. oktobra sprieduma apvienotajās lietās C-767/22, C-49/23 un C-161/23 „1Dream u. c.” 89. punktu). Uz Kriminālprocesa likuma 59. nodaļā ietverto procesa par noziedzīgi iegūtu mantu regulējumu attiecas Hartas 47. pants un Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2018. gada 14. novembra regula 2018/1805 par iesaldēšanas rīkojumu un konfiskācijas rīkojumu savstarpējo atzīšanu. Vērtējot apstrīdētās normas satversmību, jāņem vērā arī tas, ka saskaņā ar Līguma par Eiropas Savienību 6. panta 3. punktu un Hartas 52. panta 3. punktu pamattiesības, kas garantētas Konvencijā un izriet no dalībvalstu kopīgajām konstitucionālajām tradīcijām, ir uzskatāmas par Eiropas Savienības vispārējiem tiesību principiem un Hartā ietverto Konvencijā garantētajām tiesībām atbilstošo tiesību nozīme un apjoms ir tāds pats kā Konvencijā noteiktajām tiesībām (sk. Satversmes tiesas 2025. gada 19. februāra sprieduma lietā Nr. 2022-01-01 19.3. punktu).
Tādējādi izskatāmajā lietā Satversmes tiesa pārbaudīs apstrīdētās normas atbilstību Satversmes 92. panta pirmajam teikumam kopsakarā ar prasībām, kas noteiktas Hartas 47. pantā un Konvencijas 6. panta 1. punktā tā civiltiesiskajā aspektā.
…
19. Ņemot vērā visu minēto, ir secināms, ka process par noziedzīgi iegūtu mantu ir tāds process, kas izdalīts no pamata kriminālprocesa konkrēta mērķa – savlaicīgas un uz procesa ekonomijas interesēm vērstas kriminālprocesā radušos mantisko jautājumu atrisināšanas – labad. Nedz no Satversmes 92. panta pirmā teikuma, nedz Latvijai saistošām starptautiskajām saistībām cilvēktiesību jomā neizriet prasība nodrošināt to, ka apgabaltiesas lēmums, kas pieņemts procesā par noziedzīgi iegūtu mantu, var tikt pārsūdzēts augstākā instancē. Personai procesā par noziedzīgi iegūtu mantu, tostarp apgabaltiesā, kura izskata sūdzību vai protestu par rajona (pilsētas) tiesas lēmumu par noziedzīgi iegūtu mantu, tiek nodrošināts taisnīgs tiesas process.
Līdz ar to apstrīdētā norma atbilst Satversmes 92. panta pirmajam teikumam.