Published on 27 November 2023
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 9573/23
Michael KLIJN
against the Netherlands
lodged on 17 February 2023
communicated on 6 November 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant’s pre-trial detention, which started on 11 November 2022, was based on the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had manufactured amphetamine and on grounds relating to (1) public safety issues, (2) the risk of reoffending and (3) the risk of frustrating the ongoing investigation. The reasoning of that decision, as well as the reasons for dismissing his request for suspension, were recorded in the minutes of the hearing which minutes were provided to the applicant and his lawyer. By decision of 24 November 2022 the Regional Court of the Central Netherlands extended the applicant’s detention on remand and dismissed his request to suspend it, holding that suspension could frustrate the investigation as the co‑suspect had not yet been arrested and the investigations had not yet been completed. On 21 December 2022 the Court of Appeal of Arnhem‑Leeuwarden held that serious suspicions and reasons to believe that the applicant would reoffend remained, but lifted the investigation-ground, considering that there was no longer a risk of evidence being tampered as the co-suspect had been arrested in the meantime. In its reasoning regarding the dismissal of the suspension request, the Court of Appeal took into account the personal circumstances of the applicant and, in relation to the risk of reoffending, noted one recent conviction and one pending case concerning drugs-related crimes against the applicant. It did not, however, address the possibility of conditional suspension while the applicant had referred to the analysis and conclusions with regard to feasible alternatives to detention as set out in the advisory opinion of the probation and social rehabilitation service (reclasseringsadvies) of 6 December 2022.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the reasonings of the aforementioned decisions, including that feasible alternatives to detention on remand were not seriously considered.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal’s decision of 21 December 2022 regarding the applicant’s request to suspend the pre‑trial detention sufficiently reasoned, taking into account the analysis and conclusions set out in the advisory opinion of the probation and social rehabilitation service (reclasseringsadvies) of 6 December 2022 (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 139-41, 22 May 2012 ; Hasselbaink v. the Netherlands, no. 73329/16, §§ 67-73, 9 February 2021; and Maassen v. the Netherlands, no. 10982/15, §§ 53‑59, 9 February 2021)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy