A selection of key paragraph(s) can be found below the document.
87. According to the Court’s established case–law under Article 5 § 3, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion is a condition sine qua nonfor the validity of the continued detention, but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices: the Court must then establish (1) whether other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty and (2), where such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”, whether the national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Letellier, cited above, § 35, and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 140, 22 May 2012). The Court has also held that justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities. When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative means of ensuring his or her appearance at trial (ibid.).
88. Justifications which have been deemed “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons (in addition to the existence of reasonable suspicion) in the Court’s case-law, have included such grounds as the danger of absconding, the risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, the risk of collusion, the risk of reoffending, the risk of causing public disorder and the need to protect the detainee (see, for instance, Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9; Wemhoff, cited above, § 14; Tomasi, cited above, § 95; Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, § 70, Series A no. 224; Letellier, cited above, § 51; and I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, § 108, Reports of Judgments and Decisions1998‑VII).
122. In addition to the above-mentioned problems, the Court considers that the reasons invoked by the domestic courts for ordering and prolonging the applicant’s detention were stereotyped and abstract. Their decisions cited the grounds for detention without any attempt to show how they applied concretely to the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case. […]
123. In the light of all of the above factors, the Court considers that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons to order and prolong the applicant’s detention pending trial. It follows that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.