CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 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 } Published on 23 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1277/22 Jesse Joonas LÄHTEENMÄKI against Finland lodged on 16 December 2021 communicated on 3 May 2022 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant was arrested (date unknown) on charges of an aggravated drugs offence. His detention on remand was ordered relying on chapter 2, section 5, subsection 2 b) of the Coercive Measures Act as there was reason to suspect that the applicant would hinder the investigation or the trial by destroying, defacing, altering or concealing evidence or influencing a witness, an injured party, an expert or an accomplice. The applicant confessed to having committed the offence in question when heard by the police on 7 March 2021 as well as at the trial which commenced on 17 March 2021. On 18 March 2021 he requested to be released as there was no more reason to suspect that he would hinder the clarification of the matter and as all his co-accused had already been released and none of them had been called by the prosecution to give evidence against him. His request was refused by the District Court as well as by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court did not grant the applicant leave to appeal. The applicant complains, under Article 5 of the Convention, about the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the continuation of his detention after he had confessed having committed the offence he was suspected of and as the requirements of the investigation did no longer suffice to justify his further detention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? In particular, were there relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the continuation of his detention after his confession (see, inter alia, Gál v. Hungary , no. 62631/11, § 40, 11 March 2014; Merabishvili v.Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 222, 28 November 2017; and Jarzyński v.   Poland , no. 15479/02, § 43, 4 October 2005)?