CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } Published on 28 October 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4643/24 Adel ADNAN against the Netherlands lodged on 5 February 2024 communicated on 8 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s pre-trial detention, which started on 24 February 2023, was based on the existence of a reasonable suspicion of attempted manslaughter (the applicant allegedly stabbed his brother during a family dispute) and on the grounds relating to a risk of reoffending and a risk of serious upset caused to the legal order. On 21 June 2023 the North Holland Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request to lift or suspend his pre-trial detention. It held that because of the seriousness of the offence, the ground of upset to the legal order remained and that there was a risk of reoffending, because the report of the probation and social rehabilitation service ( reclasseringsadvies ) indicated that the applicant’s inability to control himself in the situation of family disputes, remained a risk-increasing factor. It did not address, in its reasoning, the fact that in the final conclusions of the above-mentioned report the risk of recidivism was assessed as low, although the applicant had relied on these conclusions, as well as on a report from the Netherlands Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology ( NIFP ). On 5 July 2023 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal upheld the decision and the reasoning. The Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent request to lift or suspend his pre-trial detention on the same grounds on 28 August 2023. It did not address, in its reasoning, the applicant’s argument that the comments in the report of the probation and social rehabilitation service about his conduct and future family disputes were presented as a point of attention that could be overcome by a duty to report. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the refusals to lift or suspend his pre-trial detention were not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention justified under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the decisions of the North Holland Regional Court of 21 June 2023 and 28 August 2023 and the decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 5 April 2023 sufficiently reasoned, in the light of the final conclusions of the advisory opinion of the Probation and Social Rehabilitation Service (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC] no.   23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016; Geisterfer v.   the   Netherlands , no.   15911/08, §§   38-39, 9 December 2014; and Maassen v. the Netherlands , no. 10982/15, §§ 54-59, 9 February 2021)?