Background
The applicant worked and lived at a dairy farm from December 2016 to May 2017 after responding to a job advertisement. She alleged that the farm operator had promised daily pay but failed to pay her, while she depended on him for food, medicines and other supplies. She complained that these circumstances, together with her personal vulnerability and the farm’s isolated location, amounted to servitude or forced labour.
After the State Labour Inspectorate forwarded her wage complaint to police, authorities opened trafficking proceedings of their own motion, inspected the farm, interviewed the applicant and numerous witnesses, and examined documentary and phone evidence. The trial court convicted the operator of trafficking, but the appellate court ultimately acquitted him after rehearing evidence; the Supreme Court declined to open final cassation proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that there had been no violation of Article 4. It first found that Article 4 applied: when the applicant made her allegations, the combination of alleged non-payment, residence on the employer’s property, dependence on supplies, and limited practical alternatives made out an arguable claim supported by prima facie evidence. That question had to be assessed on the information available when the allegations arose, not by relying on the later acquittal.
Latvia had an adequate legal and procedural framework criminalising trafficking, forced labour and servitude. Its authorities also conducted a prompt and thorough investigation on their own initiative, gathered evidence from many sources, involved the applicant, and provided her with victim support and compensation. The eventual acquittal followed an adversarial assessment across several judicial levels and did not reveal significant flaws capable of undermining the proceedings’ ability to establish the facts or identify those responsible.
Key Takeaways
- An arguable Article 4 claim can arise even if domestic proceedings later end in an acquittal.
- Article 4 requires an effective process, not a conviction in every alleged forced-labour case.
- Prompt investigation, broad evidence-gathering, victim participation and meaningful judicial review satisfied Latvia’s procedural obligations here.
Why It Matters
The judgment distinguishes the threshold for triggering Article 4 protections from the ultimate criminal-law finding. Allegations of unpaid work, dependency and employer-provided accommodation may require a serious trafficking or forced-labour investigation even where the evidence ultimately does not establish the offence.
For national authorities, the decision underscores that a well-supported acquittal will not itself breach Article 4 where the State has an adequate legal framework and conducts a genuine, thorough and victim-inclusive investigation.