Arrest and detention of former central bank Governor for 46 hours. Lawful detention due to the existence of serious evidence of guilt
JUDGMENT
Rimšēvičs v. Latvia 11.11.2022 ( app. no. 56425/18)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the arrest and approximately 46-hour detention of Mr Rimšēvičs – a former
Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia and former ECB Governing Council member – on corruptionrelated
charges in connection with a Latvian bank.
The Court found in particular that Mr Rimšēvičs’s arrest and subsequent detention had been lawful
as he had been held for less than the statutory period for doing so, that decision had not been
arbitrary owing to the suspicion against him, and that holding him for that period had not needed to
be authorised by a judge, and it had been in accordance the Criminal Procedure Law. This judgment
is without prejudice to Mr Rimšēvičs’s ongoing criminal trial.
PROVISION
Article 5 par.1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Ilmārs Rimšēvičs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Ropaži
Municipality (Latvia).
At the time of the events in this case Mr Rimšēvičs was Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia
(Latvijas Banka). He became a member of the General Council of the European Central Bank (ECB)
following the accession of the Republic of Latvia to the European Union (EU) on 1 May 2004, then a
member of the Governing Council of the ECB following the accession of the Republic of Latvia to the
euro area on 1 January 2014. His term of office as Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia expired on
20 December 2019.
On 3 March 2016 the ECB withdrew the banking licence of Trasta komercbanka, a Latvian bank, over
capital adequacy concerns and issues regarding its prevention-of-money-laundering and terrorismfinancing
protocols. That decision was upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union (joined
cases C‑663/17 P, C‑665/17 P and C‑669/17). The bank is in the process of liquidation currently.
In 2018 the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption (KNAB) instituted proceedings
against Mr Rimšēvičs on suspicion of having accepted a bribe of about 100,000 euros (EUR) from a
member of Trasta komercbanka’s board.
Mr Rimšēvičs was arrested on 17 February 2018 under section 264(1)(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Law and placed in detention the next day for a further 30 hours. He asked to be brought before an
investigating judge immediately, to no avail. The KNAB carried out additional investigative steps
including questioning him further. On 19 February 2018 he was released on bail with conditions
attached including not leaving the country and the ban on holding office. The latter was subsequently overturned by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its ruling on direct actions
brought by the applicant and the ECB (joined cases C‑202/18 and C‑238/18).
He lodged several complaints and appeals with supervising prosecutors about the legality of his
arrest and detention, which were dismissed. It was noted that he had been held for less than the
maximum 48 hours following his arrest, and the decision to do so had been in accordance with the
Criminal Procedure Law.
In July 2019 his case went to trial. A preliminary ruling was sought from the Court of Justice of the
European Union and so the trial was suspended. It was resumed upon receipt of that ruling and it is
currently ongoing.
There is another case pending before the European Court of Human rights (no. 31634/18) in which
Mr Rimšēvičs complains of remarks made by public officials after his arrest.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 5 § 1
The Court noted that Mr Rimšēvičs had been released within the 48-hour statutory period for doing
so, and had been given bail immediately following his application.
It held that there had been a reasonable suspicion against Mr Rimšēvičs – as seen in the detailed
arrest record – and so continuing to hold him after 18 February 2018 had not been arbitrary.
The arrest had been in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law and so had been lawful. In
accordance with domestic law there had been no obligation to have his deprivation of liberty for
that period authorised by a judge. A large number of investigative activities had been carried out
while he had been held.
Although Mr Rimšēvičs argued that KNAB upon arresting him had failed to assess his arguments
about potential immunity as a member of the Governing Council of the ECB, the Court saw no
reason to question the application of legal provisions by the national investigating authority, who
appeared to have had no doubt that immunity had not applied as the alleged offences had not been
carried out in connection with the duties which he carried out on behalf of an EU institution.
Given that Mr Rimšēvičs’s arrest and subsequent detention had therefore been lawful, there had
been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
This judgment is without prejudice to Mr Rimšēvičs’s ongoing criminal trial.
Other articles
Concerning the inability to access a judicial review of Mr Rimšēvičs’s arrest (Article 5 § 4), the Court
held that as the complaint to the Constitutional Court and the prosecutorial review could not be
considered an effective remedy, the six-month time-limit had commenced from the day that
Mr Rimšēvičs had been released from detention.
The Court ruled the complaint inadmissible for having been lodged outside of that six-month timelimit
then applicable (the time-limit for applications to the Court is now four months).
As for the allegation that Mr Rimšēvičs had not been brought promptly before a judge for a decision
on his detention (Article 5 § 3), the Court noted that he had been in custody for about 46 hours. This
had been compatible with the requirement to be “brought promptly”.
The Court therefore rejected, by a majority, these complaints as manifestly ill-founded.
Separate opinions
Judges O’Leary, Jelić and Guyomar expressed a partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion.
