CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify }   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 6759/11 Oleksandr Arkadiyovych GAL against Ukraine lodged on 19 January 2011   The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention without a court order after initial seventy-two hours of his detention, that is between 14.45 and 16.00 on 8 November 2010, contrary to the domestic law?   2.     Was the applicant’s detention between 8 and 15 November 2010 free from arbitrariness and based on clear and foreseeable domestic law?   3.     Was the applicant’s detention between 15 November and 29   December 2010 in compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   4.     What were the legal grounds for holding the applicant in custody between 5 February and 25 March 2011?   5.     Was the applicant brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   6.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the review prompt?