CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 12 June 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 22440/22 Edvins TRĒGERS against Latvia lodged on 19 April 2022 communicated on 26 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged deprivation of the applicant’s liberty on 14 November 2013. The applicant has a second degree disability and at the time was a resident of a State social care institution “Ziedkalne”. On 14 November 2013 at around 1.30 p.m. the applicant was stopped on the road by a police officer J.P., who ordered him to get into a municipal police car of another police officer A.R., and was transported to his place of residence – social care institution “Ziedkalne”. There the police officer J.P. (who had arrived in another police car together with police officer S.B.) told the applicant to remain in the police car under supervision of A.R., without providing any legal basis or justification. At 3.00 p.m. S.B. told the applicant to move to one of the social care institution’s buildings. There S.B. requested an employee of the social care institution to supervise the applicant and prevent him from contacting anyone. Hence, from 3.20   p.m. to 6.00   p.m. the applicant remained isolated there. Around 6.30 p.m. the police officers S.B. and J.P. brought the applicant to the police station in Jelgava. From 6.50   p.m. to 7.16   p.m. he was questioned as a witness in criminal proceedings No.   11221183413. Those proceedings had been instituted on 14 November 2013 and concerned another person’s escape from the social care institution on 13 November 2013. After the questioning, J.P. and S.B. transported the applicant back to the social care institution, where they arrived at 8.04   p.m. and the applicant was allowed to freely move. Criminal proceedings No.   12812003014 were instituted against the police officers J.P. and S.B. for exceeding their official powers with regard to their actions on 14 November 2013. On 5 December 2016 the applicant, who had been recognised as a victim in those proceedings, submitted a compensation claim. By a final decision of 30 November 2021 the domestic criminal courts concluded that the applicant had not been deprived of his liberty and acquitted both police officers. Hence, there was no basis to satisfy the applicant’s compensation claim. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 about an alleged deprivation of liberty and, invoking Article 13, that his compensation claim had been left without review. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty on 14 November 2013?   In particular, was the restriction of the applicant’s liberty during the period between 1.30 p.m. and 8.04 p.m. serious enough in terms of its context, type, duration, level of intensity, manner of implementation and/or effect, to fall within the ambit of a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Creangă v. Romania [GC], no.   29226/03, §§ 84 and 101, 23 February 2012; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 64-71, 15 December 2016; Khalikova v. Azerbaijan , no. 42883/11, §§ 97-100, 22 October 2015; Zelčs v. Latvia , no. 65367/16, §§   34-35, 20 February 2020)?   If so, what was the particular ground and legal basis for the applicant’s deprivation of liberty and did the deprivation of liberty fall within one of the sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of Article 5 § 1?   2.     Was the applicant’s detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and was it necessary in the circumstances of the case?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (the latter being lex   specialis for a right to compensation in the circumstances of the present case)?