FIFTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF VAŠČENKOVS v. LATVIA
 
(Application no. 30795/12)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
15 December 2016
 
FINAL
 
15/03/2017
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vaščenkovs v. Latvia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Angelika Nußberger, President,
 Erik Møse,
 Khanlar Hajiyev,
 Faris Vehabović,
 Yonko Grozev,
 Carlo Ranzoni,
 Mārtiņš Mits, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 December 2015 and on 22 November 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 30795/12) against the Republic of Latvia, lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Latvian national, Mr Maksims Vaščenkovs (“the applicant”), on 16 May 2012. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms I. Nikuļceva, a lawyer practising in Riga. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 3. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that, in deciding to extend his detention, the domestic courts had failed to provide sufficient reasons for the suspicion that he had committed robbery. 4. On 10 July 2014 the aforementioned complaint was communicated to the Government under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1986. He died on 3 November 2015. Ms N. Zīmele, the applicant’s grandmother, informed the Court of her wish to pursue the proceedings on his behalf. 6. The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A. The applicant’s detention on suspicion of theft
7. In July and August 2011 the police opened four criminal investigations into three incidents of theft and an incident of robbery. On 29 August 2011 these investigations were joined. 8. On 12 August 2011 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of robbery. He was held in custody on this basis until 14 August 2011, when he was placed under arrest on suspicion of theft. 9. On 15 August 2011 the police lodged an application with the Ludza District Court (Ludzas rajona tiesa) for the applicant’s pre-trial detention in relation to the theft investigation. 10. On 16 August 2011 an investigating judge granted the application. With regard to the suspicion of theft, he reasoned as follows:
“there are reasons to suspect that [the applicant] has committed the crime under section 175(3) of the Criminal Law (Krimināllikums) [theft] ... These suspicions are confirmed by the evidence gathered in the criminal case.”
11. On 18 August 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision. 12. On 2 September 2011 the Latgale Regional Court (Latgales apgabaltiesa) dismissed the appeal. With regard to the suspicion of theft, the judge stated:
“The ... suspicion that [the applicant] has committed the crime ... is confirmed by the information contained in the file.”
13. No appeal lay against the aforementioned decision. B. The applicant’s detention after being charged
14. On 19 September 2011 the public prosecutor charged the applicant with robbery, theft, involving a minor in theft and petty theft on the basis of the facts as alleged. 15. On 26 September 2011 the applicant familiarised himself with the case material. 16. On 28 September 2011 the prosecutor transferred the case to the Ludza District Court for adjudication. She set out the case against the applicant and detailed the evidence upon which the prosecution intended to rely. 17. On 17 October 2011 the investigating judge decided to keep the applicant in detention. He gave the following reasoning:
“the accusation against [the applicant] of the crimes under sections 175(3) [theft], 176(2) [robbery], 180(2) [petty theft] and 172 [involving a minor in theft] of the Criminal Law ... is confirmed by the evidence gathered in the criminal case.”
18. No appeal lay against the aforementioned decision. 19. On 28 December 2011 and 23 April 2012 the applicant’s detention was extended. The judge stated as follows:
“[the applicant’s] detention is based on the suspicion that he has committed the crime under section 175(3) of the Criminal Law [theft]... in other criminal proceedings [he] has been declared a suspect in relation to crimes under sections 180(1) [petty theft] and 176(2) [robbery] ...
... There has been no change in the reasons noted in the detention order of 16 August 2011 ... which had been re-examined in [the subsequent decisions]...”
20. On 3 February, 19 June and 6 August 2012, the applicant complained to the Ludza District Court that it had failed to assess his detention in relation to the alleged robbery. 21. On 6 August and 2 November 2012, and on 25 January 2013 the judge decided to continue the applicant’s detention, using largely the same wording as in the previous decisions. In addition, she noted that the twenty-four-month period allowed by section 277(7) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Kriminālprocesa likums) for detention had been observed because the applicant had also been accused of an especially serious offence, robbery, under section 176(2) of the Criminal Law. 22. The aforementioned decisions were not subject to appeal. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
23. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law have been noted in Urtāns v. Latvia (no. 16858/11, §§ 19 and 20, 28 October 2014). 24. Pursuant to section 277(6), a person charged with serious offence may not be held in detention for more than twelve months. Pursuant to section 277(7), a person charged with an especially serious offence may not be held in detention for more than twenty-four months. THE LAW
I. AS TO THE LOCUS STANDI OF MS N. Zīmele
25.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 5
Outcome: violation