CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 14 October 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6628/24 Etienne Avinash RAMSOENDER against the Netherlands lodged on 28 February 2024 communicated on 24 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s pre-trial detention, which started on 13 October 2023, was based on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of habitual money laundering ( gewoontewitwassen ) and on the ground of a risk of reoffending. On 23 October 2023 the probation and social rehabilitation service ( reclassering ) issued a report concluding that the risk of recidivism was assessed as low, partly on the basis of the defendant’s clean criminal record. During the hearing before the Rotterdam Regional Court the applicant argued, relying on this report, that his detention could no longer be justified on the ground of a risk of reoffending. On 24 October 2023 the Rotterdam Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand for 60 days. It held that the ground for pre ‑ trial detention followed from “the nature and total extent of the facts, assessed in combination with the further content of the suspect’s communications and other conduct”. It did not address, in its reasoning, the fact that in the above-mentioned report the risk of recidivism was assessed as low. The Regional Court also dismissed the alternative request to suspend the applicant’s pre-trial detention. On 23 November 2023 the Court of Appeal of The Hague upheld the decision and the reasoning. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention from 13 October 2023 onwards had been without adequate justification, or in the alternative, that the decisions taken by the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal had lacked sufficient reasons.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   In particular, were the Rotterdam Regional Court’s decision of 24 October 2023 and the Court of Appeal of The Hague’s decision of 28 November 2023 sufficiently reasoned (see Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 139-41, 22   May 2012; Zohlandt v.   the Netherlands , no. 69491/16, §§ 48-54, 9   February 2021; and Hasselbaink v.   the Netherlands , no. 73329/16, §§   67 ‑ 73, 9   February 2021)?