CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 22 October 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30237/18 Aleksandrs GAPOŅENKO against Latvia lodged on 22 June 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a political activist advocating for the rights of the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia. Owing to the contents of his publications, criminal proceedings were instituted for incitement to national, ethnic, racial or religious hatred and for actions directed against national independence, sovereignty or territorial integrity of the Republic of Latvia. According to the decision declaring the applicant a suspect, his publications incite participation in violent resistance actions and advocate in favour of the creation of a Russian autonomy in Latvia, as well as disseminate false allegations about resurgence of fascism and Nazism in Latvia and dangers of genocide against the Russian-speaking inhabitants of Latvia. On 21 April 2018 an investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand on the grounds that, left at liberty, he could continue committing similar offences. On 26 April 2018 this decision was upheld on appeal with the reasoning that, despite other criminal proceedings having been instituted, the applicant had continued disseminating similar publications. The judge considered that no other security measure could prevent him from committing further offences, as the applicant’s writings could be published under a different name. On 21 June 2018 the applicant’s detention was extended until 23 August 2018 when he was released. Invoking Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention the applicant complains that his detention was unlawful, as it lacked factual basis and the decisions did not contain sufficient reasoning. Invoking Articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention the applicant complains that his liberty was deprived on account of the opinions expressed by him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty breach Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, having regard to the Court’s case-law (see 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 was suspected of and did they give relevant and sufficient reasons for the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty – in addition to the persistence of the reasonable suspicion – when ordering and extending the applicant’s detention on remand?   3.     Did the applicant’s detention on remand constitute an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article   10   §   1 of the Convention?   4.     If so, was that interference justified under Article   10   §   2? In particular, in the light of the severity of the measure and the reasons adduced by the national authorities, did the interference correspond to a “pressing social need” and was it proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?   The parties are invited to submit to the Court the applicant’s publications, which form the basis for the criminal proceedings No.   11840000418.