CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2018

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 2 October 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 66499/17 Māris SPRŪDS against Latvia and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern refusals to grant access to the documents upon which the decisions on the applicants’ pre-trial detention was based. In all three cases the applicants’ requests to the investigators to consult the documents forming the basis for their detention proposals were refused. While ordering the applicants’ detention on remand the investigating judges noted that they did not have the competence to review such refusals. Further, in substantiating the detention orders they directly referred to the case file, which had not been presented to the applicants. They also noted that an elaboration of the documents on which this decision was based was not permitted as these documents were “a secret of the investigation”. Additionally, either in the decisions ordering the detention or in the appeal decisions it was also reasoned that some of the procedural documents (such as the decisions to declare the person a suspect, the applications to the court to order the detention, and search protocols) had been provided to the applicants. Thus, some of the materials contained in the criminal case file were known to them. Accordingly, the amount of materials available was sufficient to prepare an effective defence. Invoking Article 5   §   4 the applicants complain that the proceedings concerning their detention on remand had not complied with the principle of equality of arms in that they were not given access to the documents, which were essential for challenging the findings of the domestic authorities, notably by challenging the evidence they had relied upon.   QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the procedure by which the applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention in conformity with Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms between the applicants and the prosecution respected in the present case, notably in terms of access to the case file?     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   66499/17 05/09/2017 Māris SPRŪDS 14/04/1980 Riga   Jelena KVJATKOVSKA   80430/17 22/11/2017 Nauris DUREVSKIS 06/01/1981 Rīga   Jelena KVJATKOVSKA   11223/18 28/02/2018 Rolands STRAUTS 01/02/1975 Jūrmala