CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Published on 13 February 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 47658/22 Aleksandrs DUBJAGO against Latvia lodged on 2 October 2022 communicated on 24 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention in the time period between 10   May 2022 and 17 June 2022 in criminal proceedings (no.   11095050322) instituted in respect of an offence under section 74.1 of the Criminal Law (public glorification and justification of crimes against peace and war crimes). On 10 May 2022 the applicant together with many other individuals were congregating in the vicinity of a monument. With a flag of the Russian Federation on his shoulders, the applicant delivered an improvised speech, which was followed by applause and cheers of other individuals. According to the applicant, it was a speech of gratitude to those elders who had fought for the victory against Nazism in WWII. According to the domestic authorities, he was suspected of public glorification and justification of the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Subsequently, the applicant was arrested. On 12 May 2022 he was declared a suspect. On the same day, his detention was ordered by an investigating judge. By a final decision on 3 June 2022, a higher-court judge upheld the applicant’s detention. According to the applicant, on 17 June 2022 he was released. Criminal proceedings are currently pending. On 12 May 2022 the search of his home and officially declared place of residence was ordered by an investigating judge. The applicant lodged an appeal against those decisions and, on 27 June 2022, an appellate court judge dismissed one of his appeals. There is no information about any decision made in respect of the other appeal. Nor is there any information about complaints lodged with the prosecution about the actions taken during those searches. The applicant alleges that there was no reasonable suspicion against him and no justification for his detention. He invokes Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 4. He also alleges under Article 8 of the Convention that the searches carried out amounted to a “fishing expedition”. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty during the period between 10   May 2022 and 17 June 2022 in breach of Article   5 §§   1 (c) and 3 of the Convention (paragraph 3 having been invoked in substance)?   2.     In particular, having regard to the Court’s case-law, did the domestic courts assess the reasonableness of the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence he had been accused of and give relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no.   14305/17, §§ 314-19, 22   December 2020; Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no.   72508/13, §§ 181-86, 222-25, 28   November 2017; Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§   87-91, 5 July 2016; and, mutatis mutandis , Vaščenkovs v. Latvia , no. 30795/12, §§ 51‑52, 15 December 2016; Urtāns v. Latvia , no.   16858/11, §   38, 28 October 2014; Bannikov v. Latvia , no.   19279/03, § 65, 11 June 2013)?   3.     Has the applicant exhausted all available domestic remedies with respect to his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention?   4.1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, family life, home or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention in the present case?   4.2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?”