On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) dismissed a complaint by Ventspils City Council member Aivars Lembergs (“For Latvia and Ventspils”) against Latvia concerning remarks made by former Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development Edmunds Sprūdžs, who said that a thief belongs in prison.
The ECHR delivered its decision in the case “Lembergs v. Latvia”, rejecting his complaint about an alleged violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In his application to the ECHR, Lembergs claimed that then-Minister Sprūdžs violated his right to the presumption of innocence by stating during a broadcast of “900 Seconds” on Latvian Independent Television (LNT) on the 16th of October 2012, that a thief should be in prison. At the time, Lembergs was a defendant in a criminal case for which no final judgment had been issued, and he considered the Minister’s public statements as a declaration of his guilt.
The ECHR noted that the complaint concerned remarks made by the Minister in the context of proceedings to suspend Lembergs from his position as Chairman of the Ventspils City Council, and that the Minister’s reference to the criminal case in relation to the suspension proceedings created a “link” between the criminal proceedings and the suspension. Therefore, the Court found that the complaint fell within the material scope of the Convention.
The Court then addressed the government’s argument that the complaint should be dismissed due to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The ECHR considered the government’s view that Lembergs had not used the remedy available under the Criminal Procedure Law by submitting a request to the case authority to assess whether the principle of presumption of innocence had been violated by a public official not involved in the criminal process, and to issue a public statement if a violation had occurred.
The Court concluded that Lembergs still had the opportunity to pursue this remedy, as the criminal proceedings against him were ongoing. Moreover, the Court noted that if a violation were found after exhausting this procedure, Lembergs could then file a civil claim for compensation based on that finding.
The ECHR also examined the civil proceedings concerning possible defamation of Lembergs’ honour and reputation. It noted that Lembergs had filed a civil lawsuit requesting a retraction of statements that allegedly harmed his reputation. National courts reviewed the case from this perspective. Although Lembergs referred to the principle of presumption of innocence, it was not the main basis of his claim, and he had not submitted a separate complaint on this ground.
The ECHR reiterated that if a domestic legal remedy exists which allows national courts to examine a complaint about a possible Convention violation, the applicant must exhaust it. To be considered exhausted, the applicant must specifically raise the alleged violation of Convention rights before the national courts. The Court emphasized that it would be contrary to the principle of subsidiarity if a person could rely on another legal basis domestically but then bring a Convention-based claim to the ECHR.
Given that Lembergs had not exhausted these remedies and in line with the principle of subsidiarity, the ECHR unanimously concluded that his complaint was inadmissible.
It had previously been reported that Sprūdžs was asked during the LNT broadcast to comment on the proceedings he had initiated to remove Lembergs from office. Among other things, the Minister stated that Lembergs should receive a fair punishment and that “a thief, just like in the movies, should be in prison.”
On the 27th of May 2013, Lembergs filed a lawsuit demanding a retraction of what he considered defamatory statements, an apology, and compensation for non-material damages. On the 22nd of January 2018, the Riga Regional Court ruled in favour of the Minister and dismissed the claim. Lembergs appealed to the Supreme Court, which on the 9th of November 2018, refused to initiate cassation proceedings, and the regional court’s decision became final.
On the 9th of January 2019, Lembergs filed a complaint with the ECHR, claiming that the Minister’s statements had violated his right to the presumption of innocence.