CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 26 May 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 25132/25 Dāgs DINEVIČS against Latvia lodged on 1 August 2025 communicated on 6 May 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint about the lack of reasoning for his continued pre-trial detention. In   June   2023 the applicant was declared a suspect in criminal proceedings in relation to more than a dozen charges, including rape and kidnapping. On 11   July   2023 an investigating judge ordered his pre-trial detention, and the applicant was detained two days later. Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was periodically reviewed and extended by other investigating judges. Following the last decision of 17   January 2024, the applicant lodged an application with the Court about his detention (see Dinevičs v. Latvia , no.   8533/24, communicated on 5 July 2024). Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was further extended by decisions of 19 March, 15 May, 19 June, 13 August and 17 October 2024, and 8   January, 12   February and 27 June 2025. In the course of the proceedings leading to those decisions, the applicant repeatedly requested that he be released from detention or that the detention be replaced by a security measure not involving deprivation of liberty, such as release on bail. These decisions are the subject matter of the present application. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the reasons for his continued detention were stereotyped and insufficient and that his request to be released on bail was not properly addressed.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Was the applicant’s continued detention, pursuant to the decisions of 19   March, 15 May, 19 June, 13 August and 17 October 2024 as well as of 8   January, 12   February and 27 June 2025, in compliance with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   2.   In particular, having regard to the Court’s case-law (see, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no.   23755/07, §§ 85-91, 5 July 2016; Bluks Savickis v. Latvia , no. 44570/19, §§ 34-37, 13 June 2024; Hasselbaink v. the Netherlands , no.   73329/16, §§ 67-73, 9 February 2021; and Zherebin v.   Russia , no.   51445/09, §§ 49-54, 24 March 2016), did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s continued detention?