CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 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 13 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 18160/12 Dan BURCICĂ against Romania lodged on 21 March 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the suspicion of fraud, money-laundering and influence peddling between 26   November 2010 and 1 June 2012. The applicant complains under Article   5 §   3 of the Convention that the measure lasted unjustifiably long and was not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons on the part of the domestic courts. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the measure (see Simon v. Romania , no. 34945/06, 1 July 2014)?