ICCPR Case Digest

CCPR/C/141/D/3148/2018

Communication

3148/2018

Submission: 2017.08.14

View Adopted: 2024.07.19

A.L. v. Latvia

Prolonged political disqualification due to criminal proceedings in Latvia

Substantive Issues
  • Access to public services
  • Participation in public affairs
Relevant Articles
  • Article 2 - OP1
  • Article 25 (a)
  • Article 25 (c)
  • Article 3 - OP1
  • Article 5.2 (b) - OP1
Full Text

Facts

The author is a Latvian politician and Chair of the Board of the political party Latvijai un Ventspilij. He has served as Mayor of Ventspils and Chair of Ventspils City Council since 1988 and was repeatedly re-elected. He also chaired the Board of Ventspils Freeport Authority, a public entity overseeing the port’s operations. In 2005, criminal proceedings were initiated against him for multiple offences. As a security measure, he was initially detained but later placed under house arrest. In 2007, a prosecutor imposed a prohibition on him holding his public positions, arguing that continuing in office could enable him to interfere with the investigation or commit further offences. Despite multiple legal challenges, courts repeatedly upheld the employment ban, considering it necessary and proportionate. The appeal to the Constitutional Court was unsuccessful.

The author claims that the employment ban violates his right under article  25 (a) and (c) to participate in public affairs and to have access to public service because it is unjustified and disproportionate.

Admissibility

The Committee found the communication inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol, concluding that the author failed to substantiate his claims under article 25 (a) and (c) of the Covenant. It determined that the security measure was lawful, necessary, and proportionate, aimed at preventing obstruction of justice in an ongoing criminal case. In reaching this decision, the Committee noted that the author’s prohibition from holding two public service positions was imposed due to charges related to abuse of office, therefore, the State party was able to provide a legitimate justification. The measure was regularly reviewed by national courts, and the author had not demonstrated that these decisions were arbitrary or a denial of justice. The Committee found that the restriction did not prevent him from engaging in public affairs, as he could still attend council meetings and vote.

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

English | French | Russian | Spanish | Chinese

CCPR NGO Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook

CCPR NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (November 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese