CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF ŠKAVRONSKIS v. LATVIA (Application no. 4207/19)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 10 July 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Škavronskis v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President ,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant, judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no. 4207/19) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 11 January 2019 by a Latvian national, Mr Andrejs Škavronskis (“the applicant”), who was born in 1967, lives in Jūrmala, and was represented by Ms J. Kvjatkovska, a lawyer practising in Riga; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, concerning the refusal to grant access to the documents upon which the applicant’s pre-trial detention was based, to the Latvian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce, and subsequently by Ms E.L. Vītola, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the application by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the refusal to grant access to the documents on which the applicant’s pre-trial detention was based, and his consequent inability to challenge effectively the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention. 2.     On 7 May 2018 the State Police Department for Combating Organised Crime ( Valsts policijas Organizētās noziedzības apkarošanas pārvalde ) instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 11815001618) with regard to alleged offences of pimping and money laundering by an organised group. 3.     On 4 October 2018 at 2.50 a.m. the applicant was arrested in connection with those criminal proceedings, after his home and car had been searched. Later that day he was hospitalised and received emergency medical treatment. 4 .     On the same day, the applicant’s defence counsel made a written request to the police investigator for the case materials which would form the basis of the application for pre-trial detention to be made available prior to the detention hearing. That request was rejected in a decision dated 11   October 2018 as being impossible to satisfy because the investigator had received the request only on 8 October 2018. 5.     On 5 October 2018 the investigator served on the applicant a decision declaring him a suspect and an application addressed to the investigating judge of the Riga District Court (Rīgas rajona tiesa ) seeking the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The applicant refused to sign either document. 6.     On the same day, the investigating judge held the pre-trial detention hearing without the applicant being present. The documents from the criminal case file that were available to the applicant and his defence counsel at this stage of the proceedings were: the decision declaring the applicant a suspect; the arrest report; the application to detain him pending trial, as a preventative measure; two decisions authorising a search; and the search reports. During the hearing, the applicant’s defence counsel submitted that the failure to provide him with access to the case materials on which the application for the pre-trial detention was based had amounted to a grave violation of the rights of the defence. 7 .     By a decision of 5 October 2018, the investigating judge ordered that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention. The decision contained a general reference to the case materials as having given rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences of which he was suspected. The investigating judge reasoned that there was a risk that the applicant might attempt to hinder the proper conduct of the proceedings as evidenced by “the materials of the criminal proceedings, including the information obtained as a result of special investigative activities”. 8.     On 9 October 2018 the applicant’s defence counsel lodged an appeal against the detention order with the Riga Regional Court. He referred to, inter alia , the lack of access to the case materials which had served as the basis for the application for the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 9 .     During the Riga Regional Court’s hearing of 25 October 2018, the investigator rejected the defence counsel’s request to become acquainted with the case materials, allowing access only to the certificate issued from the Punishment Register ( Sodu reģistrs ) regarding the applicant’s previous conviction for a similar criminal offence. 10 .     By a decision of 25 October 2018, the Riga Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original ruling. The judge based the existence of reasonable suspicion on the case materials prepared following the special investigative actions and on the testimonies of witnesses and other suspects. As regards access to the case materials, the judge reasoned: “... The presentation of these materials would hinder the achievement of the aims of the criminal proceedings. The materials in question in fact relate to the special investigative actions which have been carried out over a prolonged period of time, as well as to statements made by witnesses who have already been questioned, the contents of which should not be disclosed [to the applicant].” 11.     That decision was not subject to appeal. 12.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning the imposition of his pre-trial detention had not complied with the principle of equality of arms, in that he had been denied access to documents which were essential in order to challenge the domestic authorities’ findings, in particular the evidence relied on in deciding to impose detention. Relevant DOMESTIC LAW 13 .     Section 60 2 (3)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law ( Kriminālprocesa likums ), as in force at the material time, provided that detainees, suspects and accused persons who had been subjected to deprivation of their liberty as a preventative measure had the right to access the case-file material used to justify the application for their deprivation of liberty, provided that this access did not infringe the fundamental rights of other persons, damage public interests, or hinder the progress of criminal proceedings. 14.     Under section 375(1), during criminal proceedings the case-file material is classified as an “investigation secret” ( izmeklēšanas noslēpums ). Only officials conducting criminal proceedings may familiarise themselves with it, as may persons to whom that material is presented by those officials in accordance with the Law. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 16.     Article 5 § 4 of the Convention has been consistently interpreted by the Court as providing certain minimal procedural guarantees to a detainee while the court decides on whether a preventive detention should be imposed, extended or cancelled (see Khodorkovskiy v. Russia , no. 5829/04, §   219, 31   May 2011). 17.     The Court reiterates that in view of the dramatic impact of deprivation of liberty on the fundamental rights of the person concerned, proceedings conducted under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention should in principle also meet, to the largest extent possible under the circumstances of an ongoing investigation, the basic requirements of a fair trial as guaranteed under Article   6 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Schöps v.   Germany , no.   25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I; Garcia Alva v. Germany , no.   23541/94, §   39, 13   February 2001; and Albrechtas v. Lithuania , no. 1886/06, §   73, 19   January 2016 ). 18.     Equality of arms is not ensured if counsel is denied access to those documents in the case file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his or her client’s detention (see Lamy v. Belgium , 30   March 1989, § 29, Series A no. 151; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, §   58, ECHR 1999-II; and Piruzyan v. Armenia , no. 33376/07, § 116, 26 June 2012). 19.     The Government maintained that the legal framework applicable to the applicant’s complaints was provided in section 60 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law (see paragraph 13 above) and that restricting the access of the defence to the case file was not per se contrary to the standards of the Convention, provided that the interests of the investigation and the rights of the defence had been properly balanced. In the Government’s view, the balancing exercise carried out by the domestic authorities in the present case had fully satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 20.     The applicant disagreed and argued that the principle of equality of arms had not been ensured because he and his defence counsel had been denied access to documents in the criminal case file which were essential in order to effectively challenge the lawfulness of his detention. He maintained that he had been unable to familiarise himself with any of the documents or evidence supporting the application for his detention, and that the decisions of the domestic authorities had contained only vague and general references to legal provisions and unspecified case materials. 21.     The Court notes that prior to the pre-trial detention hearing before the investigating judge, the investigator had not received and had not responded to the applicant’s request to access the case material (see paragraph 4 above). The Court further notes that, during the hearing before the investigating judge, the applicant’s defence counsel pointed out that he had not been given access to the materials in the criminal case file and alleged that this was a serious violation. However, the investigating judge did not substantively address the issue of access to the case materials in the decision to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. Moreover, during the hearing in the Riga Regional Court, the investigator orally dismissed the request by the applicant’s defence counsel to consult the case file and, in particular, the evidence in support of the application for pre-trial detention (see paragraph   9 above). For their part, however, the investigating judge and the Riga Regional Court reached their conclusions that there were grounds for suspecting that the applicant had committed the offences in question on the basis of the contents of that same file, referring directly to case materials that had not been made available to the defence (see paragraphs 7 and 10 above). 22.     The Court observes that the contents of the case file thus appear to have played a key role in the decision by the investigating judge and the Riga Regional Court to detain the applicant pending trial. However, while the investigator, the investigating judge and the Riga Regional Court were familiar with the contents of the case file, its precise contents had not been transmitted to the applicant or his defence counsel at that stage of the proceedings. Thus, neither the applicant nor his defence counsel had adequate opportunity to challenge the domestic authorities’ findings, and in particular the evidence they had relied upon. 23.     The Court notes that the applicant was informed in general terms of the grounds for suspecting him. Before the hearing on 5 October 2018, he was presented with the investigator’s application to impose pre-trial detention. Having examined that document, the Court accepts that it provided a general outline of how the alleged offences had been perpetrated. However, in the Court’s opinion, it was hardly possible for the applicant to challenge the reliability of such an account properly without being informed of the evidence on which it had been based. 24.     The Court acknowledges the need for criminal investigations to be conducted efficiently, which may imply that part of the information collected during them is to be kept secret in order to prevent suspects from tampering with evidence and undermining the course of justice. However, this legitimate goal cannot be pursued at the expense of substantial restrictions on the rights of the defence. Therefore, information which is essential for the assessment of the lawfulness of a detention should be made available in an appropriate manner to the suspect’s lawyer (see Miķelsons v. Latvia , no. 46413/10, §   80, 3   November 2015; Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 124, 9   July 2009; and Emilian-George Igna v. Romania , no. 21249/05, §   27, 26   November 2013). 25.     In these circumstances, and given the importance that the investigating judge and the Riga Regional Court attached to the contents of the case materials, which the applicant was unable to challenge effectively since that information had not been communicated to him or his defence counsel, it cannot be considered that the principle of “equality of arms” was respected. Consequently, the proceedings before the investigating judge and the Riga Regional Court did not comply with the guarantees afforded by Article   5 § 4 (see Lamy , § 29, and Garcia Alva , §§ 40-43, both cited above). 26.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 27.     The applicant claimed 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 28.     The Government maintained that the finding of a violation would, in itself, constitute sufficient just satisfaction. 29.     The Court considers that it is impossible to determine, and thus it cannot speculate, whether or not the applicant’s pre-trial detention would have been authorised by the investigating judge had there been no violation of Article 5 § 4. As to the alleged frustration suffered by the applicant on account of the absence of adequate procedural guarantees in relation to the decision to place him in pre-trial detention, the Court finds that in the particular circumstances of this case, the finding of a violation is sufficient (see Albrechtas , § 89, and Garcia Alva , § 47, both cited above). 30.     The applicant made no claim in respect of costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant; Dismisses   the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2025, pursuant to Rule   77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Deputy Registrar   President