CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mai 2017

.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 }   Communicated on 17 May 2017     SECOND SECTION Application no. 46663/14 Igor PÎNZARI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 31 May 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly unlawful prolongation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In particular, according to Article 186 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any application for the prolongation of pre ‑ trial detention must be lodged by the prosecutor not later than five days before the expiry of the ongoing detention. According to Article 230 (2) of the same Code, failure to observe this time limit leads to the impossibility to prolong the pre-trial detention. Since the prosecutor’s application for prolongation was lodged only three days prior to the expiry of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the investigating judge upheld it, the applicant contends that the ensuing detention was contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention after 13 March 2014 extended “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?