CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 janvier 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 13 February 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 27077/22 K.L. against Latvia lodged on 19 May 2022 communicated on 27 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged deprivation of liberty of the applicant between 26 April 2021 and 11   May   2021 in connection with the COVID-19 quarantine at the asylum seekers’ centre “Mucenieki”. The applicant has been granted subsidiary protection (i.e., alternative status) in Latvia and alleges that there was no legal basis to detain him in the asylum seekers’ centre. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty between 26 April 2021 and 11   May 2021?   In particular, was the applicant’s confinement in the asylum seekers’ centre “Mucenieki” serious enough in terms of its context, type, duration, level of intensity, manner of implementation and/or effect, to fall within the ambit of a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, in the context of the general lockdown introduced to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, Terheş v.   Romania (dec.), no. 49933/20, §§ 36-37, 13 April 2021; see also, mutatis mutandis , Creangă v. Romania [GC], no.   29226/03, §§ 84 and 101, 23 February 2012; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 64-71, 15 December 2016; Khalikova v. Azerbaijan , no. 42883/11, §§ 97-100, 22 October 2015; Zelčs v. Latvia , no. 65367/16, §§   34-35, 20 February 2020)?   If so, what was the particular ground and legal basis for the applicant’s deprivation of liberty and did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of Article 5 § 1?   3.     Was the applicant’s detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and was it necessary in the circumstances of the case?