Communicated on 14 September 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 10982/15 Marlon MAASSEN against the Netherlands lodged on 24 February 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Marlon Maassen , is a Dutch national , born in 1991. At the time of the introduction of the application he was detained in Baarn . He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Reisinger , a lawyer practising in Utrecht .

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

3. The applicant was suspected of trafficking in persons ( mensenhandel ), in particular the exploitation of an under-age prostitute. He was arrested on 2 December 2014. Subsequently on 5 December 2014, he was taken into initial detention on remand ( bewaring ) for fourteen days by order of an investigating judge ( rechter-commissaris ) of the Midden -Nederland Regional Court ( rechtbank ). The order included the following grounds for the detention:

“It appears that there is a serious reason of public safety requiring the immediate deprivation of liberty, namely:

There is a suspicion of a [criminal] act which, according to the law, carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment of twelve years or more and that act has seriously shocked the legal order ( een feit waarop naar de wettelijke omschrijving een gevangenisstraf van twaalf jaren of meer is gesteld en waardoor de rechtsorde ernstig is geschokt );

T here is a serious likelihood ( dat er ernstig rekening mee moet worden gehouden ) that the suspect will commit a crime ( misdrijf ) which, according to the law, carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment of six years or more;

There is a serious likelihood that the suspect will commit a crime by which the health or safety of persons will be endangered ( waardoor de gezondheid of veiligheid van personen in gevaar kan worden gebracht ) ;

The detention on remand is necessary to discover the truth ( voor het aan de dag brengen van de waarheid ) otherwise than through statements of the suspect. Witnesses/co-suspects need to be heard, without the suspect having the possibility to influence the content of their statements.”

4. On 18 December 2014, a hearing took place before the Midden -Nederland Regional Court, pertaining to the applicant ’ s placement in extended detention on remand ( gevangenhouding ). During the hearing, the applicant requested through counsel, that the demanded extended detention on remand be refused, or in the alternative that his detention on remand be suspended ( schorsing ). He argued, firstly, that the facts he was accused of having committed had not seriously shocked the legal order. Secondly, there were no indications of a risk of reoffending, taking into account that the applicant had only once been convicted – of the theft of a bicycle – and been acquitted in a different case. Lastly, the applicant contended that his detention on remand was no longer justified for the purpose of the investigation, since the most immediate witnesses had already been heard and had given their statements.

5. The Regional Court ordered on the same day that the applicant be taken into extended detention on remand for ninety days, starting from 19 December 2014. The Regional Court ’ s decision included the following:

“ The Regional Court is of the view that the serious reasons and grounds stated in the order for initial detention on remand ( bevel inbewaringstelling ) still exist. That is not, however, the case as far as the ground relating to the investigation ( onderzoeksgrond ) is concerned.

The defence has argued that the ground of [an offence carrying a] twelve-year [sentence] ( 12- jaarsgrond ) is similarly not applicable. The Regional Court nevertheless takes the view that this ground is applicable in the instant case, considering the youthful age of the victim and the great media-attention for this case.”

The Regional Court subsequently rejected the alternative request to suspend the detention on remand, holding that the applicant ’ s personal interests did not outweigh the general interest of society in the detention on remand being continued.

6. The applicant appealed to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ( gerechtshof ). According to the official record ( proces-verbaal ) of a hearing held on 14 January 2015, counsel for the applicant argued that the extended detention on remand lacked sufficient justifiable grounds and, in the alternative, that the applicant should be allowed to await the trial in liberty by suspending his detention on remand with conditions. Counsel maintained that there was no risk of reoffending and, moreover, that the Regional Court had failed duly to motivate its view that the offences with which the applicant was charged had seriously shocked the legal order.

7. In reply, the prosecutor submitted, inter alia , that the charges against the applicant were grave and, referring to a television broadcast about human trafficking and prostitution, that there was active media-attention.

8. On the same day the Court of Appeal confirmed the Regional Court ’ s decision. The decision included the following:

“The court takes the view that the serious reasons and grounds on the basis of which the Regional Court ordered the suspect ’ s extended detention on remand still exist, as a result of which [...] the Regional Court ’ s decision is to be confirmed.”

9. No further appeal lay against this decision.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that his extended detention on remand from 19 December 2014 onwards was without adequate justification, or in the alternative, that the respective decisions taken by the domestic courts lacked sufficient reasons .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention from 19 December 2014 onwards justified under Article 5 § 1 (c) and under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2. In particular, were the grounds on the basis of which the applicant ’ s extended detention on remand was ordered by the Regional Court sufficient?