Podkolzina v. Latvia

Last updated
Podkolzina v. Latvia
Court European Court of Human Rights
Decided9 April 2002
Citation(s) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0409JUD004672699
Case opinions
Unanimous
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting N. Bratza, E. Palm, J. Makarczyk, V. Strážnická, M. Fischbach, J. Casadevall, R. Maruste
Keywords
Language, eligibility

Podkolzina v. Latvia (46726/99) was a case argued before the European Court of Human Rights and decided in 2002.

Contents

Facts

Mrs. I. Podkolzina, member of Equal Rights party [1] was included in the list of the candidates of the National Harmony Party for 1998 parliamentary elections, submitted in July. At the time of the registration of its list of candidates the party supplied the Central Electoral Commission with all the documents required, including a copy of the certificate attesting to the fact that the applicant knew the State's official language – Latvian.

On 6 and 7 August 1998 an examiner employed by the State Language Inspectorate, went to the applicant's place of work and examined her to assess her knowledge of Latvian. The examiner then drew up a report to the effect that the applicant did not have an adequate command of the official language at the "third level", the highest of the three categories of competence defined in Latvian regulations and the one then required for eligibility in parliament. By a decision of 21 August 1998 the Central Electoral Commission struck the applicant's name out of the list of candidates.

The NHP, acting on the applicant's behalf, asked the Riga Regional Court to set aside the above decision. The court held that there had been no breach of the law.

Proceedings

The applicant was represented before ECtHR first by I. Oziša, member of Latvian Human Rights Committee, and later by W. Bowring, a British barrister. The Latvian Government were represented by their agent K. Maļinovska. By a decision of 8 February 2001 the Chamber declared the application admissible. [2]

Judgment

On 9 April 2002 ECHR has delivered a unanimous judgment. The Court emphasised that the validity of the applicant's certificate was never questioned by the Latvian authorities. It further noted that it was issued to the applicant after an examination organised by a board composed of five examiners. The Court noted that "the procedure followed differed fundamentally from the normal procedure for certification of linguistic competence, which is governed by the above-mentioned regulation of 25 May 1992. In particular, the additional verification to which the applicant was subjected was carried out by one examiner instead of a board of experts and the examiner was not required to observe the procedural safeguards and assessment criteria laid down in the regulation. Thus the full responsibility for assessing the applicant's linguistic knowledge was left to a single civil servant, who had exorbitant power in the matter. Moreover, the Court can only express its surprise over the fact – related by the applicant and not disputed by the Government – that during the examination the applicant was questioned mainly about the reasons for her political orientation" (see para. 36).

Considering the Riga Regional Court's judgment, ECHR held that its sole basis was the certificate drawn up by the State Language Centre after the examination in issue; it did not rule on the other evidence in the file. The Court therefore considered that "in admitting as irrebuttable evidence the results of an examination the procedure for which lacked the fundamental guarantees of fairness, the Regional Court deliberately avoided providing a remedy for the violation committed" (see para. 37). Therefore, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the case and ordered Latvia to pay Podkolzina 9000 euros. The Court found it unnecessary to examine complaints under Articles 13 and 14 separately.

Aftermath

Though the ECtHR judgment didn't require Latvia to abolish language requirements for candidates, it did so in May, 2002, after indications of desirability from George Robertson, US government [3] and OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities. [4]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Human Rights</span> Supranational court established by the Council of Europe

The European Court of Human Rights, also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The European Convention on Human Rights is also referred to by the initials "ECHR". The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

Vassili Makarovich Kononov or Vasiliy Makarovich Kononov was a Soviet partisan during World War II, who was convicted by the Supreme Court of Latvia as a war criminal. He is the only former Soviet partisan convicted of crimes against humanity.

Nikolay Tess was one of the few functionaries in charge of political repressions in the former Soviet Union who were convicted for this activity.

The Church of Scientology Moscow v Russia [2007] ECHR 258 is a European Court of Human Rights case, concerning Article 11 of the convention. In the case the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg condemned Moscow City Government's refusal to consider the Church of Scientology of Moscow for registration as a religious organisation, and as a result found that Russia had violated the rights of the Church of Scientology under Articles 11 when "read in the light of Article 9". Specifically, the Court determined that, in denying consideration of registration to the Church of Scientology of Moscow, the Moscow authorities "did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant's religious community". The Court also awarded the Church €10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €15,000 for costs and expenses.

Slivenko v. Latvia (48321/99) was a case argued before the European Court of Human Rights and decided in 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Latvian Human Rights Committee</span>

Latvian Human Rights Committee is a non-governmental human rights organization in Latvia. It is a member of international human rights and anti-racism NGOs FIDH, AEDH. Co-chairpersons of LHRC are Vladimir Buzayev and Natalia Yolkina. According to the authors of the study "Ethnopolitics in Latvia", former CBSS Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ole Espersen "had visited LHRC various times and had used mostly the data of that organisation in his views on Latvia".

Ignatāne v. Latvia was a case decided by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2001.

Vogt v. Germany (1996) 21 EHRR 205, (17851/91) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 1995. The case concerned a Mrs. Vogt who was suspended from her teaching job at a public secondary school because of her past membership in the German Communist Party. The ECHR ruled that this application of Berufsverbot violated provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights relating to freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Oršuš and Others v. Croatia (15766/03) was a case heard before the European Court of Human Rights, concerning activities of Roma-only classes in some schools of Croatia, which were held legal by the Constitutional Court of Croatia in 2007 by a decision no. U-III-3138/2002.

Ciubotaru v. Moldova was a case decided by European Court of Human Rights in 2010. Mihai Ciubotaru sought to have his ethnicity changed from Moldovan to Romanian on his birth and marriage certificates, which Moldova refused. The Court found that Moldova's procedure for changing ethnicity of record violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Schalk and Kopf v Austria is a case decided in 2010 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in which it was clarified that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not oblige member states to legislate for or legally recognize same-sex marriages.

X and Others v. Austria, Application No. 19010/07, was a human rights case that was decided in 2013 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The case concerned whether the Government of Austria had discriminated against Austrian citizens who were in same-sex relationships because the wording of the Austrian Civil Code did not permit unmarried same-sex couples access to legally granted second-parent adoptions, whereas it was available to unmarried heterosexual couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ganna Yudkivska</span>

Ganna (Anna) Yuriyivna Yudkivska is a Ukrainian lawyer and judge. She was the judge of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Ukraine in 2010-2022. She is a Member of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

Opinion 2/13 (2014) is an EU law case determined by the European Court of Justice, concerning the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, and more generally the relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Committee Against Torture</span> UN body of human rights experts

The Committee Against Torture (CAT) is a treaty body of human rights experts that monitors implementation of the United Nations Convention against Torture by state parties. The committee is one of eight UN-linked human rights treaty bodies. All state parties are obliged under the convention to submit regular reports to the CAT on how rights are being implemented. Upon ratifying the convention, states must submit a report within one year, after which they are obliged to report every four years. The committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the state party in the form of "concluding observations." Under certain circumstances, the CAT may consider complaints or communications from individuals claiming that their rights under the convention have been violated.

Toplak and Mrak v. Slovenia of 26 October 2021, is the European Court of Human Rights judgment in which the court held that voters' rights were violated when they had no legal right to ask for accessible polling places in advance to achieve accessibility before the election day. The ruling is also significant because the court for the first time extended its jurisdiction to referendums.

A. and Others v United Kingdom is a human rights case decided by the European Court of Human Rights. It unanimously held that holding prisoners indefinitely under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with Article 5.

References

  1. ↑ Latviju iesūdz Strasbūras tiesā valodas prasmes apliecības dēļ (in Latvian)
  2. ↑ Admissibility decision (in French)
  3. ↑ Human Rights in Latvia in 2002 — p. 9. Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies, 2003 ISBN   9984-9359-8-1
  4. ↑ EDSO komisārs pauž atbalstu vēlēšanu likuma grozīšanai Delfi 2002(in Latvian)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.