On 29 December 2025, the Riga City Court partially upheld our client's complaint and annulled the decision of the State Police to dispose of the vehicle belonging to the company in the framework of criminal proceedings. The court found that the police decision was adopted in gross violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law and lacked the essential, legally significant motivation required for such a restriction of property rights.
According to the Court, the decision of the person directing the proceedings did not fulfil one of the main prerequisites laid down in Article 239(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law, i.e. it did not contain legal reasoning as to why the physical evidence could not be returned to its owner or lawful possessor. The police had only referred to the storage costs and potential wear and tear of the vehicle, but the court stressed that these circumstances alone were not sufficient grounds for irreversible confiscation of the property. The legislation requires a cumulative condition - both that the long-term storage causes damage to the State and that it is impossible for the owner to return the vehicle. The second condition was neither established nor motivated in the police decision.
The judge pointed out that in legal practice, the statement of reasons is not a formal requirement - it must reflect the actual legal reasoning of the person who initiated the proceedings, which makes it possible to ascertain the proportionality and legality of the decision taken. In the present case, the lack of motivation in fact made it impossible to assess why the disposal of the property was objectively necessary and why less restrictive means - including the return of the property to the owner - would not be applicable. The Court further noted that it was not sufficient to make general references to the depreciation of the market value of the vehicles or the storage costs - the police had to indicate in their decision specific, objective circumstances which would make the restriction of the owner's rights unavoidable.
The Court also stressed that the investigating judge had no power to decide on the return of the seized property to the person, and therefore dismissed this element of the complaint. The annulment of the decision does not mean that the police are prevented from deciding again on the disposition of the physical evidence - however, this can only happen if all the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Act are complied with and the new decision is duly motivated in detail. This finding of the Court confirms once again that the disposal of property seized in criminal proceedings - especially where it affects the property rights of a company or an individual - requires extremely strict compliance with the law. The State Police is obliged to ensure not only the efficiency of criminal proceedings, but also respect for the rule of law by avoiding disproportionate and unjustified restrictions on property rights. The Court made it clear that further action must be based on the law, the facts and sufficient evidence to support the particular conclusions of the prosecutor.
