CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2024

.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 22 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15439/23 Mihails UĻMANS against Latvia lodged on 4 April 2023 communicated on 4 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention about the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention and the lack of access to the case materials upon which the decisions on the applicant’s detention were based. The applicant was arrested on 24 May 2022 on suspicion of aggravated murder. On 26 May 2022 an investigating judge of the Riga City Vidzeme District Court ( Rīgas pilsētas Vidzemes priekšpilsētas tiesa ) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. On 31 May 2022 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against that detention order, however, by a decision of 12 June 2022 the Riga Regional Court ( Rīgas apgabaltiesa ) dismissed the appeal. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was then periodically reviewed by the investigating judge, who extended his detention by decisions of 25 July, 30   September, 29 November 2022 and 31 January, 21 March 2023. On 26 April 2023 the criminal case (no. 11511001018) was transferred to the Riga City Court ( Rīgas pilsētas tiesa ) for adjudication. By a decision of 26 June 2023 the Riga City Court extended the applicant’s detention. The applicant complains, relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention, about the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his initial and continued detention and about the lack of reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence alleged. He also alleges that the proceedings concerning his detention on remand were not adversarial and did not ensure equality of arms in that he was not given access to the materials in the case file on the basis of which the lawfulness of his detention was examined and which were essential for challenging the findings of the domestic authorities, notably by challenging the case materials they had relied upon. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s detention in compliance with Article 5 §§   1 (c) and   3 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the Court’s case-law (see, for example, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 85-91, 5   July 2016; Becciev v. Moldova , no. 9190/03, §§ 53-59, 70, 4 October 2005; Urtāns v. Latvia , no. 16858/11, §§ 28-30, 28 October 2014; and Zherebin v.   Russia , no.   51445/09, §§ 49-54, 24 March 2016), did the domestic courts assess the reasonableness of the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence he had been charged with and did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons in their decisions justifying the applicant’s initial and continued detention?   2.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution respected in the present case, notably in terms of access to the case materials on the basis of which the applicant’s detention was justified (see, X.Y. v. Hungary , no. 43888/08, §§ 50-52, 19 March 2013; Ovsjannikov v. Estonia , no. 1346/12, §§ 72-78, 20 February 2014; Miķelsons v. Latvia , no.   46413/10, §§ 74-82, 3 November 2015; and Albrechtas v.   Lithuania , no. 1886/06, §§ 73-85, 19 January 2016)?