CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mars 2019

.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 21 March 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6097/16 Stevan PETROVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 26 December 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3, and 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention of being ill-treated while in police custody, his inability to appoint a lawyer of his own choosing during this time, the subsequent lack of an effective official investigation into his abuse, the unlawfulness of his police detention, and the length of his court-ordered detention thereafter as well as the reasoning offered by the domestic courts therefor. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention while in police custody on 20 and 21 February 2013?   Also, having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 2.     Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention between 1.00 p.m. and 3.40 p.m. on 20   February 2013 and/or between 9.00 p.m. on 20 February 2013 and 22   February 2013 in breach of Article   5 §   1 (c) of the Convention? Also, was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention between 22   February 2013 and 23 May 2014 and/or the reasoning offered by the domestic courts therefor in breach of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention (see Lakatoš and   Others v. Serbia , no. 3363/08, § 94, 7 January 2014)? 3.     Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article   6   §   3   (c) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , John Murray v. the United Kingdom , 8 February 1996, §§   62 and 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ I)? 4.     The Government are lastly invited to provide the Court with all relevant information and documentation regarding: (i) the course and the final outcome of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, particularly in the context of his complaint under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention; and (ii) the official investigation into the alleged police ill-treatment suffered by the applicant on 20 and 21   February 2013.