5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Jūrmala. 6.  On 20 November 2008 the police drew up an administrative offence report (administratīvā pārkāpuma protokols) stating that the applicant had violated Article 14915(4) of the Code of Administrative Offences (Latvijas Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodekss) by driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 1.5 permilles (0.15%). The applicant lodged an appeal. 7.  On 1 December 2008 the Jūrmala City Court (Jūrmalas pilsētas tiesa) terminated the administrative offence proceedings, as it had failed to establish corpus delicti. This decision took effect on 5 January 2009, and the applicant’s driving licence card was returned to him. 8.  On 10 February 2009 a prosecutor lodged an appeal (apelācijas protests) against the decision of 1 December 2008. The Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) instituted appeal proceedings. On 23 February 2009 the applicant received notice of the hearing, which was set to take place in four days. He asked for the hearing to be postponed so that he could prepare his defence. The Riga Regional Court dismissed that request and heard the case in the applicant’s absence. 9.  By a judgment of 27 February 2009 the Riga Regional Court quashed the decision of 1 December 2008. It found that the applicant had committed an offence under Article 14915(4) of the Code of Administrative Offences and imposed the following penalties: fifteen days’ administrative detention; a fine of 500 lats (LVL – approximately 685 euros (EUR)); a two-year driving ban; and a ban on obtaining a licence to operate recreational crafts for two years. The decision was not amenable to appeal and took effect on 6 March 2009 when its text was finalised. 10.  The applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice that a final court decision had been quashed. On 26 March 2009 the Ministry responded that under the Code of Administrative Offences the prosecutor had the right to appeal against decisions taken in administrative offence proceedings and that there were no time-limits for doing so. 11.  On 25 March 2009 the applicant requested that the execution of the judgment of 27 February 2009 be suspended. By a final decision of 28 April 2009 the Riga Regional Court dismissed that request. 12.  On 31 July 2009 the police drew up an administrative offence report stating, inter alia, that the applicant had driven a car while disqualified, in violation of Article 1494(6) of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter “the initial offence”). On 1 September 2009 a fine of LVL 250 (approximately EUR 343) was imposed on him. On 7 October 2009 that decision was upheld by the State Police. 13.  On 19 October 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal with the administrative courts. He argued that on 1 December 2008 the first set of administrative offence proceedings had been terminated and that the relevant decision had taken effect. His driving licence card had been returned to him. Under domestic law, decisions that had become final could not be quashed on appeal. 14.  On 20 December 2010 the Administrative District Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa) dismissed the appeal, noting that the decision of 1 December 2008 had been set aside by the Riga Regional Court, whereas the judgment of 27 February 2009 revoking his right to drive vehicles had taken effect and was binding. Thus, on 31 July 2009 the applicant had driven a car even though his licence had been revoked. 15.  The applicant appealed before the Administrative Regional Court (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa), which by a final judgment of 24 April 2012 upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. It added that the twenty-day time-limit for lodging an appeal only applied to persons against whom administrative offence proceedings had been instituted. It did not apply to prosecutors in the exercise of their right to lodge an appeal. Hence, in the applicant’s case the prosecutor had been entitled to appeal against the decision of 1 December 2008 even after it had taken effect. Furthermore, the judgment of 27 February 2009 had become final and was legally binding. Its legality could not be reassessed in the present set of proceedings. Lastly, there was no indication that the applicant had been unaware of the fact that his driving licence had been revoked. 16.  On 23 September 2009 the police drew up an administrative offence report stating that the applicant had driven a car while disqualified and that the offence had been committed repeatedly within a year, in violation of Article 1494(7) of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter “the repeat offence”). The applicant lodged an appeal. 17.  On 6 November 2009 the Riga City Zemgale District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Zemgales priekšpilsētas tiesa) found the applicant administratively liable under Article 1494(7) of the Code of Administrative Offences for driving while disqualified repeatedly within a year. In establishing the facts the court referred to the judgment of 27 February 2009 (see paragraph 9 above) and the administrative offence report of 31 July 2009 (see paragraph 12 above). The court imposed a penalty of five days’ administrative detention and a fine of LVL 400 (approximately EUR 549). 18.  The applicant appealed against this judgment arguing (i) that the judgment of 27 February 2009 was unlawful and (ii) that the repeated nature of the offence could not be established, as his appeal concerning the administrative offence report of 31 July 2009 (relating to the initial offence) was still pending. The applicant requested that the court either terminate the proceedings or suspend them until the conclusion of the administrative offence proceedings concerning the initial offence. 19.  On 26 February 2010 the Riga Regional Court by a final judgment upheld the finding that the applicant had committed a repeat offence. It noted that there was no reason to conclude that a person could not be found guilty of a repeat offence while the decision concerning the initial offence was being appealed against. The fact that the appeal proceedings were still pending could not be used as a criterion to determine whether the person had already been administratively punished. The only criterion for determining the repeated nature of the offence was whether or not the decision on the initial offence had been set aside or its legal effect suspended at the time the decision on the repeat offence was being taken. In the absence of such circumstances, the findings of the decision on the initial offence were legally binding and had to be taken into account when classifying the second offence as a repeat offence. Referring to Article 283 of the Code of Administrative Offences, the court noted that an appeal against a decision revoking a person’s driving licence did not suspend enforcement of that decision. Accordingly, the appeal lodged against the decision concerning the offence of 31 July 2009 (the initial offence) did not preclude the offence under consideration being classified as a repeat offence and the proceedings being concluded while that appeal was still pending. 20.  On 2 June 2010, when the applicant lodged his application with the Court, he submitted that he had already served the sentence of five day’s administrative detention and had already paid the fine imposed in the third set of administrative offence proceedings. The Government did not contest this allegation.