FIRST SECTION
CASE OF RJABIŅINS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
(Application no. 55091/15)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
20 November 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rjabiņins and Others v. Latvia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Davor Derenčinović, President,
 Artūrs Kučs,
 Anna Adamska-Gallant, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 55091/15) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 October 2015 by three Latvian nationals, whose relevant details are listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), and who were represented by Mr E. Rusanovs, a lawyer practising in Riga;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention to the Latvian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the decision to dismiss the Government’s objection to the examination of the application by a Committee;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 23 October 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the covert interception of the applicants’ telephone conversations, their subsequent discovery of the interception and their inability to challenge it ex post facto. 2. The first applicant was employed by a company where he was directly supervised by G.M.G. The second and third applicants were employed by a different company (“the X company”), whose board of directors was chaired by V.G. for some time prior to 2012, and by G.M.G. from 2012 onwards. 3. On 28 May 2014 a criminal investigation was opened to investigate allegations of misappropriation of a large shipment from a warehouse belonging to the X company in 2012. 4. On 17 October 2014 a police investigator submitted a request to an investigating judge to authorise the covert interception of the telephone communications of G.M.G., V.G. and the three applicants. Separate requests were submitted in respect of each person. All the requests included a summary of the facts, which explained that an investigation had been opened on 28 May 2014 and that, on the basis of the information gathered, there was reason to believe that “[G.M.G.] and [V.G.], as part of a group of persons, might have reached a prior agreement to develop a criminal plan with the aim of misappropriating large amounts of other people’s property”. According to the requests, on 18 September 2014 the investigator had declared G.M.G. and V.G. suspects in criminal proceedings no. 11816007414. All the requests concluded that G.M.G., V.G. and the three applicants were “possibly connected with the organisation and execution” of the offence under investigation. 5. In the request in respect of the first applicant, the investigator also submitted that the applicant had frequently followed G.M.G.’s instructions. The investigator argued that it was necessary to carry out special investigative activities to monitor his mobile phone for a period of thirty days because there was reason to believe that his telephone conversations might contain relevant information, and that the information could not be obtained without performing such activities. 6. As regards the second and third applicants, the investigator submitted that, on 17 September 2014, they had been detained in the context of the criminal investigation and had been declared “persons against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated”. They were released later the same day. The investigator submitted identical reasons as for the first applicant (see paragraph 5 above). 7. On 28 October 2014 the investigating judge authorised the covert interception of the telephone communications of the three applicants, G.M.G. and V.G. from that date until 26 November 2014. In doing so, the judge referred to section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which provided that the covert interception of communications could be carried out on the basis of a decision by an investigating judge if there were grounds to believe that the communications might contain information regarding “the circumstances to be established”, and if the acquisition of necessary information was otherwise impossible. The wording of the orders was identical for all three applicants, G.M.G. and V.G. Specifically, they stated:
“Having reviewed the investigator’s request and having examined the materials of the criminal proceedings, the judge considers that the request is justified and acceptable.
...
... [I]n accordance with section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Law ... the judge considers it necessary to authorise a special investigative activity – namely, monitoring of means of communication – for a period of 30 days from 28 October 2024 with the aim of obtaining information about facts forming part of the circumstances to be established.
... The judge [decides] to grant the request. With the aim of obtaining information about facts forming part of the circumstances to be established in criminal proceedings no. 11816007414, [the judge decides] to authorise a special investigative activity in respect of [the first applicant / the second applicant / the third applicant / G.M.G. / V.G.], namely monitoring the mobile phone and communications data associated with [that person’s] telephone number ...
... A complaint about the decision may be lodged with the President of the Riga City Ziemeļu District Court at any point during the pre-trial proceedings.”
8. On 20 February 2015 the criminal proceedings were discontinued in respect of the second and third applicants for lack of evidence. 9. On 19 June 2015 the pre-trial investigation was concluded and a case against G.M.G., V.G. and a third person (L.K.) was referred to a first-instance court for trial. On the same day the lawyer representing G.M.G. and V.G., who was also the applicants’ lawyer at the time, received a copy of the case file. As a result, he discovered the investigating judge’s decisions of 28 October 2014 authorising the covert interception of the applicants’ telephone communications. There were no documents in the case file regarding the information which had been obtained as a result of the interception activities. 10. The applicants challenged the decisions of the investigative judge before the Riga City Ziemeļu District Court. The court dismissed the applicants’ complaints on the grounds that, under domestic law, the investigative judge’s decisions could not be challenged after the completion of the pre-trial investigation. 11. At the time of the exchange of the parties’ observations in the present case, the criminal proceedings against G.M.G and V.G. were pending before an appellate court. 12. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the interference with their private life had not been justified, in that the Criminal Procedure Law, on the basis of which the surveillance orders had been issued, was not foreseeable in its application and that, in any event, the interference had not been necessary in the circumstances. They further complained under Article 13 that they had not had an effective remedy under domestic law by which to challenge the interception of their telephone communications.

Outcome for Article 13: violation