CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 December 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 14652/24 F.S. against the Netherlands lodged on 24 May 2024 communicated on 26 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 12 January 2024 an investigating judge of the Rotterdam Regional Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, based on the existence of serious suspicions ( ernstige bezwaren ) of evasion of sanctions against Russia and on the grounds of risk of frustrating the ongoing investigation ( onderzoeksgrond ). On 23 January 2024 the Rotterdam Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand for 14 days, instead of 30 days as the public prosecutor had requested. The court referred to the initial detention order and noted that, given the suspect’s cooperative attitude, it assumed that the investigation would progress sufficiently during the extended time to eliminate the risk of collusion. It added that “in the event of any further extension [of the pre-trial detention], it will have to be explained why this assumption was incorrect”. The court dismissed the applicant’s alternative request to suspend his pre-trial detention. On 1 February 2024 the Court of Appeal of The Hague upheld the Regional Court’s reasoning and decision. It denied the repeated request to suspend the pre-trial detention. On 6 February 2024 the Rotterdam Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand for a period of 46 days. It referred to a report by the Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Department (“FIOD”) of the same date, which according to the court strengthened the existence of serious suspicions and gave a better picture of the existence of the risk of collusion. The court dismissed the applicant’s alternative request for suspension of his pre-trial detention. He was released on 13 March 2024. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the decisions to extend his pre-trial detention were not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant duly exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaint (see Mansouri v. Italy (dec.) [GC], no. 63386/16, § 86, 29 April 2025)?   2.     In the event that domestic remedies have been exhausted, has there been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the decisions of the Rotterdam Regional Court of 23   January and 6 February 2024 and of the Court of Appeal of The Hague of 1 February 2024 sufficiently reasoned (see Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§ 139-41, 22   May 2012; Zohlandt v.   the Netherlands , no.   69491/16, §§ 48-54, 9 February 2021; and Hasselbaink v.   the   Netherlands , no. 73329/16, §§ 67-73, 9   February 2021)?