Communicated on 31 August 2020 Published on 21 September 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 44570/19 Jurijs BLUKS SAVICKIS against Latvia lodged on 17 August 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jurijs Bluks Savickis , is a Latvian national, who was born in 1962 and is detained in Riga. He is represented before the Court by Ms R. Matjušina , a lawyer practising in Riga.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 15 November 2017 the applicant was detained on suspicion of unauthorised acquisition and storage of narcotic substances for distribution purposes. On 17 November 2017 the domestic authorities ordered the applicant ’ s detention pending trial which was then periodically reviewed. In the decision of 25 April 2019, the Riga Regional Court noted that the applicant ’ s continued pre-trial detention was justified in the interests of public safety.

In the hearing of 28 June 2019 the applicant again requested to be released from detention. By a final decision of 28 June 2019 the Riga Regional Court dismissed that request and ordered his detention to be continued. The court relied on section 249 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law and noted that the grounds for his detention had not ceased to exist or changed. It added that no arguments had been established that could completely eliminate the possibility to continue the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, the maximum detention time had not been reached, and the detention was proportionate to the severity of the offence and the course of the criminal proceedings.

At the time of introduction of this application the applicant was still detained pending trial.

Section 249 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law, which took effect on 1 October 2005, provides that the investigator revokes or changes the compulsory procedural measure if the grounds for its application have ceased to exist or have changed, or the conditions for its application, the person ’ s behaviour or other circumstances that determined the choice of the compulsory procedural measure have changed.

Under section 272 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law as in force since 1 October 2005, a person may be detained only if specific factual information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings creates a reasonable suspicion that the person in question has committed a criminal offence, for which the law provides for a custodial sentence, and if no other security measure can ensure that they will not commit another criminal offence or obstruct or avoid the pre-trial proceedings, trial or execution of the sentence.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that his continued pre-trial detention was unlawful and that the judicial decisions lacked sufficient reasoning for its continuation. In particular, he notes that the domestic courts relied on the fact that the applicant had not brought forward any arguments for his release instead of giving their reasons why the detention was still justified . He relies on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention?

In particular, having regard to the Court ’ s case-law ( Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, 5 July 2016, and Urtāns v. Latvia , no. 16858/11, 28 October 2014) , did the domestic courts assess the reasonableness of the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences he had been charged with and did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons in the decisions of 25 April and 28 June 2019 justifying the applicant ’ s continued detention?

In view of the Court ’ s findings concerning a systemic problem with respect to the application of the pre-trial detention in Latvia (see, in particular, Zandbergs v. Latvia , no. 71092/01, §§ 71-72 , 20 December 2011, as well as the more recent case-law following the adoption of the Criminal Procedure Law (see, in particular, Urtāns v. Latvia , cited above, § 38, and Vaščenkovs v. Latvia , no. 30795/12, §§ 50-1, 15 December 2016), has the State ensured that when deciding on the extension of pre-trial detention the judicial authorities give relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the continued deprivation of liberty?