CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 January 2018     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 76860/14 Sándor SEBŐK against Hungary lodged on 4 December 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention without him being heard and in the absence of any legal assistance available to him. It further concerns the alleged irregularities of the appellate proceedings, in particular its slowness, and the inequality of arms resulting from the court’s failure to inform the applicant’s lawyer about the prosecutor’s observations and the lawyer’s inability to put forward observations in response. The applicant was in pre-trial detention between 14   September 2014 and 30   April 2015, and the second instance decision on his detention on remand was served on his lawyer on 14   November 2014. The applicant died on 26   September 2016 and his mother applied to pursue the application before the Court in his stead.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant heard in person (see Nikolova v.   Bulgaria [GC], no.   31195/96, §   49, ECHR 1999 ‑ II)? 2.     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? Did the length of the proceedings comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?