Court Rules on Pre-Trial Detention Violations

Applicant vs. Latvia – European Court of Human Rights – Application no. 23755/07 – Case Summary

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a significant ruling in the case of Applicant vs. Latvia, addressing the legality of continued pre-trial detention under Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicant, arrested on 17 November 2017, was held in pre-trial detention until his release on 12 September 2019. The applicant argued that his continued detention was unlawful and lacked sufficient reasoning, violating his rights under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

The applicant initially faced detention based on the serious nature of the alleged offense, his criminal history, and the risk of reoffending. However, the applicant contended that these grounds were no longer valid as of 25 April 2019, and his continued detention was unjustified.

The Government maintained that the applicant's detention was based on reasonable suspicion supported by solid evidence and that the national courts had duly addressed the need for continued detention, considering various factors such as the applicant's character, health, and the nature of the offense.

The ECHR found that while the initial detention was justified, the national courts failed to provide specific, relevant, and sufficient reasons for extending the applicant's detention over time. The courts relied on general and abstract reasoning, without addressing whether less restrictive measures could have been applied.

The Court emphasized that the persistence of reasonable suspicion alone does not justify continued detention; additional grounds must be provided. The national courts did not demonstrate special diligence in conducting the proceedings, nor did they adequately consider alternatives to detention.

The ECHR concluded that there was a violation of Article 5 § 3, noting that the applicant's requests for non-custodial measures were summarily dismissed without genuine assessment. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,600 in non-pecuniary damages for the distress caused by the violation.

This ruling underscores the importance of detailed judicial reasoning in decisions on pre-trial detention and sets a precedent for ensuring that deprivation of liberty is justified by specific and sufficient grounds.

Legal representatives included Mr. John Smith for the applicant and Ms. Emily Johnson for the Government. The judgment was delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice Andrew Baker.

Case Citation Reference: Application no. 23755/07