CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 18 May 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 43411/12 József SOMOGYI against Hungary lodged on 5 July 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns in essence the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The measure was ordered by the competent Hungarian court on 11 April 2009 and it lasted until 11 June 2010, when the applicant was placed in house arrest for the period until 8 July 2010. On the latter date, his pre-trial detention was ordered again and it lasted until 24 November 2010, when the applicant was again placed in house arrest. He was released on 6   June 2014. The applicant’s applications for release were to no avail, although he pointed out that he could have started to work and still been present at regular controls, thus the court could have applied less restrictive measures than pre-trial detention or house arrest. The applicant submits that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity of his continued pre-trial detention and house arrest or to duly assess the applicability of alternative measures. He also complains about the lack of an effective remedy in the proceedings concerning his applications for release. He invokes Articles   5 §   1 and 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES   1.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?