CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mai 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 14 May 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 5818/15 László KÓTÉ against Hungary lodged on 24 January 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the protraction of the applicant’s alternating pre ‑ trial detentions and house arrests on charges of robbery and other offences (13 February 2009 to 6 November 2012; then in repeated proceedings 16 January 2014 to 16 November 2015). He also complains that the defence was repeatedly not notified of the upcoming reviews of the coercive measures and the courts did not serve the prosecution’s motions on the defence in due time before sessions concerning his potential release. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and house arrest in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention (see Bandur v. Hungary , no. 50130/12, 5 July 2016)?   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 (see Bandur v. Hungary , no. 50130/12, 5 July 2016)? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution respected in the present case?