CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 16 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no 8844/12 Christof STOLLENWERK against Germany lodged on 9 February 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns proceedings for judicial review of the applicant’s detention on remand ordered on suspicion of drug trafficking. The Düsseldorf Court of Appeal took its decision of 3 February 2011 ordering the continuation of the applicant’s detention and that of 25   February 2011 dismissing his request for a subsequent hearing without giving the applicant the possibility to reply to the written observations of the Düsseldorf General Prosecution Authorities. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 28 July 2011 not to accept the applicant’s complaint for adjudication was served on the applicant on 10 August 2011. The applicant complains that this procedure violated his right to equality of arms guaranteed by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.   QUESTION Having regard to the Court’s case-law (see, in particular, Lanz v. Austria , no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002) was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution complied with in the proceedings by which the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was decided, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?