CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 août 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 12 September 2022   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 4200/19 and 4207/19 Māris MARTINSONS against Latvia and Andrejs ŠKAVRONSKIS against Latvia lodged on 9 January 2019 and 11 January 2019 respectively communicated on 25 August 2022   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the lack of access to the documents upon which the decisions on the applicants’ pre-trial detention were based. The applicants’ pre-trial detention was ordered by an investigating judge on 12 December 2018 (in respect of the applicant in case no. 4200/19) and on   5 October 2018 (in respect of the applicant in case no. 4207/19). It was upheld on appeal on 3 January 2019 (in respect of the applicant in case no.   4200/19) and 25 October 2018 (in respect of the applicant in case no.   4207/19). The applicants in their appeals relied inter alia on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, but their complaints were nevertheless dismissed. The applicants complain, in essence, that the proceedings concerning their pre-trial detention did not comply 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.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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?   2.     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?