CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 7 February 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 44644/21 Valentīns JEREMEJEVS against Latvia lodged on 1 September 2021 communicated on 17 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint that the applicant, a social and political activist who regularly posts on social media, was placed in detention and subjected to criminal investigation and security measures in view of the videos he had posted on Facebook. The videos contained his interviews with health-care professionals concerning the Covid-19 infection and the Government’s control and prevention measures. The criminal investigation commenced on 8 December 2020 with respect to the offence of hooliganism, and the applicant’s requests to terminate the proceedings have been dismissed. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression in view of the ongoing criminal investigation, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention (see Dilipak v. Turkey , no.   29680/05, §§   44-51, 15 September 2015, and Nedim Şener v. Turkey , no.   38270/11, §§   94-96, 8 July 2014)?   2.     Was that interference prescribed by law in terms of Article   10   §   2, noting particularly the requirement of foreseeability?   3.     Was that interference necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   The parties are requested to submit factual information on the actions that formed the basis for the institution of the criminal proceedings, including the videos that were posted on Facebook on 2 December 2020 and 4 December 2020 and their transcript.