CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   Communicated on 5 July 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 65367/16 Ringolds ZELČS against Latvia lodged on 11 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention on 20 November 2015 in relation to the administrative-offence proceedings (driving under the influence of alcohol, record no. PC082928) and overall fairness of those proceedings. With a final decision of 7 June 2016 the following penalties were imposed on the applicant: five-day arrest, monetary fine in the amount of EUR 850 and withdrawal of the driver’s licence for two years (final decision: 7 June 2016). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty on 20 November 2015 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty on 20 November 2015 fall within paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of this provision (see Čamans and Timofejeva v. Latvia , no. 42906/12, §§   121 and 124, 28 April 2016 and Rozhkov v. Russia (No. 2), no. 38898/04, §§   75-77, 31 January 2017)?   2.     Was the applicant’s detention on 20 November 2015 ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see Rozhkov , cited above, §   78)?   3.     Did the lack of a possibility for the applicant to have police officers (E.P. and N.S.) repeatedly questioned during the administrative proceedings before the first-instance court on 5 February 2016 render those proceedings unfair, in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Seton v. the United Kingdom , no. 55287/10, §§ 58-59, 31   March 2016)?