The Court repeatedly points out in the same case that the State Police committed serious irregularities in its decision to dispose of the impounded car.
This is the opinion of our law firm, having assessed the legality of the decision of the State Police of 6 January 2026 on the disposition of physical evidence, as well as the considerations contained in the decision of the investigating judge of 16 February 2026. Having assessed the content and legal framework of the above-mentioned rulings, it can be concluded that the decision of the State Police was rightly repeatedly declared unlawful and annulled.
Pursuant to Articles 318 and 320 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the person directing the proceedings is obliged to adopt a reasoned decision which clearly reflects an analysis of the factual circumstances and an assessment of the applicable legal provisions. The reasons must be such as to enable the addressee of the decision to follow the reasoning of the official, to understand the rationale of the conclusions and to make effective use of the right of appeal. The Court's decision establishes that the contested decision does not fulfil such an obligation: it does not fully analyse the information obtained in the criminal proceedings, does not state reasons for the application of the legal norms and does not ensure the traceability of the conclusions. Such lack of reasoning does not comply with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law or the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 92 of the Satversme.
It also found a serious deficiency in the application of the legal framework. The decision applies simultaneously the provisions relating to the property seized (Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Law) and to the physical evidence (Article 239 of the Criminal Procedure Law), but does not clearly define the procedural status of the vehicle and does not explain the interrelation of these provisions. Such confusion of different legal regimes creates legal uncertainty and is inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty, as the procedural regulation of seized property and tangible evidence differs both in the basis of application and in the nature of the consequences.
There was also a significant breach of the principle of proportionality. Article 12 of the Law on Criminal Procedure states that disproportionate interference with a person's rights is not allowed in criminal proceedings. The decision does not consider the possibility of applying a less restrictive measure, i.e. placing the vehicle in the custody of its owner, as provided for in Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Law. It does not analyse the specific risks to the preservation of the property, does not assess the behaviour of the owner and does not give reasons why a more lenient solution would not be applicable. .
The absence of a proportionality assessment indicates an insufficient analysis of the restriction of the fundamental right and renders the disposal of the property unjustified.
In addition, the decision identifies the storage costs of the vehicle as one of the grounds for disposal, which amount to just over €600 compared to its market value of close to €20,000.00, without however carrying out a proportionality analysis of these amounts.
There is no assessment of whether such costs objectively impose a disproportionate burden on the State, no analysis of the impact of the course of the investigation on the value of the assets and no evidence that disposal would be the only legitimate solution. According to Cabinet Regulation No 1025, the disposal of property must be duly justified by specific and individually established circumstances, which are not reflected in this case.
The Court also pointed to a lack of procedural traceability: the decision does not clearly reflect the link between the seizure of the vehicle, its arrest and its subsequent procedural status in criminal proceedings. This incomplete presentation of the procedural steps makes it impossible to ensure that the procedural order has been complied with and makes it difficult to check the legality of the decision.
In sum, the decision of the State Police of 6 January 2026 did not comply with the requirements of a reasoned decision, it inconsistently applied a different legal framework, it did not carry out a proper proportionality assessment and it did not justify the necessity to dispose of the property. These shortcomings seriously affect the right to a fair trial and the inviolability of property, and the decision of the investigating judge to annul this ruling is therefore legally justified.
