CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 décembre 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 8 December 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 26599/15 Béla SZABÓ against Hungary lodged on 27 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns prosecution against the applicant on charges of trafficking in stolen goods and other offences. On 5 November 2014 he was detained on remand. On 10 November his common-law wife retained a lawyer, Dr K. The latter’s name and address was announced to the authorities on 11 November. The lawyer attended an interrogation of the applicant on 17   November and submitted a request for release on 25   November 2014. The prosecution’s counter-application was served on the lawyer on 1   December 2014. However, in the ensuing period (until the applicant’s release on 4 May 2015) the prolongations took place without any documents served on the applicant’s appointed lawyer, Dr   K.   (apparently, they were sent by mistake to another lawyer with a similar name). The applicant complains that this state of affairs curtailed his rights to adversarial proceedings concerning his prolonged detention. He invokes Articles 6 § 3 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES 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 principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution respected in the present case?