Communicated on 10 July 2014
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 7712/12 and 30795/12
Artūrs TUČS against Latvia
and Maksims Vaščenkovs against Latvia
lodged on 24 January 2012
and 16 May 2012 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The first applicant, Mr Artūrs Tučs, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1990 and lives in Daugavpils.
2. The second applicant, Mr Maksims Vaščenkovs, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Daugavpils.
A. The circumstances of the cases
3. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicants
4. In July and August 2011 the police opened four separate investigations into three incidents of theft and one incident of robbery. On 29 August 2011 these proceedings were joined.
5. On 19 September 2011 the applicants were charged with theft and robbery. In addition, the second applicant was charged with engagement of a minor in theft and with theft of small amount.
6. On 28 September 2011 the case was handed over to the Ludza District Court (Ludzas rajona tiesa) for adjudication.
2. The first applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention
7. On 26 July 2011 the police apprehended the first applicant on suspicion of his involvement in theft. He was kept in custody until 28 July 2011.
8. On 28 July 2011 the police arrested him again, this time on the suspicion of his involvement in robbery.
9. On 29 July 2011 the Police Inspector T.P. submitted a request to the Ludza District Court. She proposed that the first applicant be placed in pre‑trial detention.
10. The same day, 29 July 2011, the Investigation Judge of the Ludza District Court G.S. granted that request.
11. With regard to the existence of grounded suspicion that the applicant had committed the robbery the Investigation Judge G.S. gave the following reasoning:
“The Judge deems that grounds exist for suspicion against [the first applicant] that he has committed the crime under section 176(3) of the Criminal Law [robbery]... That is confirmed by the evidence gathered in the criminal case.”
12. The aforementioned ruling was subject to appeal. On 5 August 2011 the first applicant appealed against it. He argued that the suspicion against him had been exaggerated.
13. On 19 August 2011 the Judge of the Latgale Regional Court (Latgales apgabaltiesa) D.S. refused the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the impugned ruling.
14. No appeal was allowed against the ruling of the Judge D.S.
15. On 7 October 2011 the Investigation Judge of the Ludza District Court J.A. ruled on the first applicant’s continued pre-trial detention.
16. The Investigation Judge J.A. indicated that on 29 September 2011 two months had lapsed since the applicant had been placed in pre-trial detention. According to section 281(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law, continuation of pre-trial detention needed to be examined.
17. With regard to the existence of grounded suspicion that the first applicant had committed the crimes alleged at the material time, the Investigation Judge J.A. reasoned in the following manner:
“The Judge deems that grounds exist for accusation against [the first applicant] that he has committed the crime under section 176(3) of the Criminal Law [robbery] ... and section 175(3) of the Criminal Law [theft]... That is confirmed by the evidence gathered in the criminal case.”
18. The aforementioned ruling could not be appealed against.
19. On 28 December 2011, 23 April and 2 November 2012 the Judge of the Ludza District Court I.M. ruled on the first applicant’s continued pre-trial detention, indicating the crimes the applicant was accused of. She also provided that grounds for pre-trial detention considered in the previous rulings had not changed.
20. No appeal was available against those rulings.
3. The second applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention
21. On 12 August 2011 the police apprehended the second applicant on suspicion of his involvement in robbery. He was kept in police custody until 14 August 2011.
22. On 14 August 2011 the police arrested him again, this time on the suspicion of his involvement in theft.
23. On 15 August 2011 the Police Inspector T.P. motioned the Ludza District Court that the second applicant be detained in relation to the theft investigation.
24. On 16 August 2011 the Investigation Judge of the Ludza District Court G.S. granted that request.
25. With regard to the existence of grounded suspicion that the applicant had committed the theft the Investigation Judge G.S. gave the following reasoning:
“The Judge deems that grounds exist for suspicion against [the second applicant] that he has committed the crime under section 175(3) of the Criminal Law [theft] ... That is confirmed by the evidence gathered in the criminal case.”
26. The aforementioned ruling was subject to appeal.
27. On 18 August 2011 the second applicant appealed against it.
28. On 2 September 2011 an appeal hearing was held before the Judge of the Latgale Regional Court I.Z. The same day, the Judge I.Z. refused the applicant’s appeal and upheld the impugned ruling.
29. As regards the existence of grounded suspicion she gave the following reasoning:
“The grounded suspicion that [the second applicant] has committed the crime, provided in the ruling of the Judge ... is confirmed by the information contained in the file.
...
...the file contains concrete information attesting to grounded suspicion that [the second applicant] has committed the crime...”
30. No appeal was permitted against the aforementioned ruling.
31. On 17 October 2011 the Investigation Judge of the Ludza District Court J.A. ruled that the second applicant be kept in pre-trial detention. The Investigation Judge noted that on 16 October 2011 two months had lapsed since the applicant had been placed in pre-trial detention. Based on section 281(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law it needed to be examined whether further pre-trial detention was necessary.
32. With regard to the existence of grounded suspicion that the second applicant had committed the crimes alleged the Investigation Judge J.A. reasoned in the following manner:
“[The Judge] deems that grounds exist for accusation against [the second applicant] that he has committed the crimes under sections 175(3) [theft], 176(2) [robbery], 180(2) [theft of small amount] and 172 [engagement of a minor in crime] of the Criminal Law ... That is confirmed by the evidence gathered in the criminal case.”
33. No appeal was permitted against that ruling.
34. On 28 December 2011 and 23 April 2012 the second applicant’s continued pre-trial detention was extended.
35. On 19 June and 6 August 2012 and 3 February 2012 he complained to the Judge of the Ludza District Court I.M. that his detention in relation to the allegation of robbery had not been assessed.
36. On 6 August and 2 November 2012, and 25 January 2013 the Judge I.M. upheld the second applicant’s continued pre-trial detention. Her reasoning in the relevant part read as follows:
“From the ... material it derives that [the second applicant’s] pre-trial detention is based on [the fact] that [he] is suspected of having committed a crime under section 175(3) of the Criminal Law [theft]...
...
[The second applicant] is accused of the crimes under sections 175(3) [theft], 176(2) [robbery], 180(2) [theft of small amount] [and] 172 [engagement of a minor in crime] of the Criminal Law...”
37. The aforementioned rulings could not be appealed.
B. Relevant domestic law
38. Section 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law in so far as relevant reads as follows:
“(1) Pre-trial detention may be applied only if concrete information has been gathered in criminal proceedings on such facts that attest to grounded suspicion that a person has committed a crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty...”
39. According to section 281(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law an investigation judge shall examine whether continuation of pre-trial detention is necessary where in the course of two months the detainee or his or her representative or defence lawyer have not submitted a request thereof. The first instance court shall conduct that examination where adjudication of the case is adjourned for more than two months. According sub-section (6) those rulings may not be appealed.
COMPLAINTS
40. The applicants complain about inadequate assessment by the domestic courts of suspicion that they had committed the crimes in issue for keeping them under the pre-trial detention:
Application no. 7712/12
41. In particular, referring to Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the first applicant complains that his pre-trial detention was based essentially on his status of a suspect and later that of an accused in the criminal proceedings.
Application no. 30795/12
42. In particular, referring to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the second applicant complains that his pre-trial detention had initially been related to the allegation of theft. When subsequently the allegation of robbery had been included, that allegation had not been assessed in keeping him under the pre-trial detention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the domestic courts consider the requirement of reasonable suspicion (Article 5 § 1(c)) that the applicants had committed the crimes in issue when deciding on their pre-trial detention in compliance with Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy