Communicated on 16 January 2019<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no.76865\/17
\nIn\u0101rsK\u013bAVI\u0145\u0160 against Latvia
\nand 2 other applications
\n(see list appended)<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
The applications concern the length of various types of proceedings involving civil claims.<\/p>\n
In particular, Mr K\u013cavi\u0146\u0161 (application no.\u00a076865\/18) was involved in criminal proceedings. He joined them as a civil party seeking damages for his son\u2019s death (domestic proceedings no.\u00a011520097006). Ms Guravska (application no.\u00a041553\/18) was involved in civil proceedings regarding a property dispute (domestic proceedings no.\u00a0C04215408). The third applicant, Mr Tauters (application no.\u00a057008\/18) in 2013 brought compensation proceedings before the administrative courts against the local municipality (domestic proceedings no.\u00a0A420277914).<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies as required by Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention?<\/p>\n
In particular, was there an effective remedy available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, one that was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicants\u2019 complaints, and offered reasonable prospects of success?<\/p>\n
The Government are invited to submit relevant case-law examples.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Was the length of the proceedings in the present cases in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention?<\/p>\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\n| Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n | Lodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n | Applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n | Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 18\/05\/1936<\/p>\n R\u012bga<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 02\/09\/1950<\/p>\n R\u012bga<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 25\/05\/1963<\/p>\n R\u012bga<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n |