FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 45475/18 M.D . against Latvia

( s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Ganna Yudkivska, President,

Lado Chanturia,

Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 September 2018,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant ’ s details are set out in the appended table.

The Vice-President of the Section decided under Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court to grant the applicant anonymity.

The applicant was represented by Mr J. ZaÄ·is , a lawyer practising in RÄ«ga .

The applicant ’ s complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention and violation of the presumption of innocence were communicated to the Latvian Government (“the Government”) .

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention .

The Government acknowledged the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant ’ s continued pre-trial detention and the failure to satisfy the requirements of the principle of presumption of innocence . They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above ‑ mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declaration several months before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant ’ s continued pre-trial detention (see, for example, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07 , 5 July 2016, and Urtāns v. Latvia , no. 16858/11 , 28 October 2014 ) and relating to the breach of presumption of innocence (see, for example, MatijaÅ¡ević v. Serbia , no. 23037/04, ECHR 2006 ‑ X; MugoÅ¡a v. Montenegro , no. 76522/12 , 21 June 2016; and Perica Oreb v. Croatia , no. 20824/09 , 31 October 2013) .

Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt, Ganna Yudkivska Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention

(Detention: Relevant and sufficient reasons, presumption of innocence)

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Representative ’ s name and location

Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration

Date of the Applicant ’ s comments, if any

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

45475/18

18/09/2018

M.D.

Zaķis Jānis

RÄ«ga

29/01/2020

-

3,150

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.