CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mai 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 } .sB9541D82 { font-family:Arial; color:#212121 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 9 February 2015 and 17 May 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no 51249/11 Stevan ORAVEC against Croatia lodged on 30 July 2011     The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Is Article 5 § 4 applicable to the proceedings upon the appeal lodged by the prosecution on 1 June 2011 against the investigating judge’s decision of 31 May 2011? If so, 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?   2.     In the alternative, was the decision of the Osijek County Court of 10   June 2011 ordering the applicant’s detention in compliance with Article 5 § 1(c) of the Convention?