CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 24 June 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48729/16 Călin LINCAR against Romania lodged on 9 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention after conviction for a period of two weeks and two days. The detention was found to have been unlawful by the domestic courts and the applicant received compensation of 6,000 Romanian lei (approximately 1,300 euros). He considered that that award was not sufficient for the purpose of Article 5 of the Convention, taking into consideration the unlawfulness of his detention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34? In particular, were the finding that his detention had been unlawful and the amount received as compensation sufficient for the purpose of Article 5 read in conjunction with Article 34 of the Convention (see final decision no. 598/2015 of the Oradea District Court – Criminal Section and final decision no. 509/2016-A of the Oradea Court of Appeal – Civil Section)?   2.     Assuming that the applicant can still claim to be a victim, was he deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention between 20 April and 5   May   2015 ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?