Published on 26 August 2024
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 8533/24
Dāgs DINEVIČS
against Latvia
lodged on 17 March 2024
communicated on 5 July 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s complaint, in essence, under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention.
On 5 June 2023 the applicant was declared a suspect in criminal proceedings (no. 10870104823) in relation to more than a dozen of charges, including five especially serious criminal offences. On 11 July 2023 an investigating judge ordered his pre-trial detention and ordered the police to find him. On 13 July 2023 the applicant was located and arrested. By a decision of 31 July 2023 a higher-court judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint against his detention order.
Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was periodically reviewed by another investigating judge, who extended the applicant’s detention by decisions of 13 September, 13 November 2023, 17 January, 19 March and 15 May 2024.
The applicant relies on Article 5 of the Convention. He alleges that the reasons for his initial and 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 initial and continued detention in compliance with Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 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 assess the reasonableness of the suspicion against the applicant and did they provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s initial and continued detention? Did they sufficiently address the applicant’s request to be released on bail?