CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sFC16598D { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .s9C58967C { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s9EA106EF { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } Communicated on 2 September 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 19642/19 Shahram Abdullah ZADEH against the Czech Republic and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern Mr Shahram Abdullah Zadeh who is a Czech and Iranian citizen against whom two sets of criminal proceedings are currently pending in the Czech Republic. The first set of proceedings was instituted against him on the suspicion of being part of an organised criminal group and of tax evasion. The applicant was arrested on 19 March 2014 and subsequently detained on remand on 21 March 2014. He was released on bail on 4   February 2016. The second set of proceedings was instituted against him on the suspicion of being part of an organized criminal group, false accusation and favouritism. He was arrested for the second time on 2   December 2016 and detained on remand on 4 December 2016. On the date of introduction of his last application (no. 34883/19), the applicant was still detained on remand.   The applications concern: 1.     alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a decision on the lawfulness of his detention to be taken “speedily” (Article 5 § 4 of the Convention); 2.     alleged violation of the applicant’s right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention) on account of detention lasting 1 year, 10 months and 14 days in the first set of criminal proceedings and lasting so far 2 years, 6 months and 23 days in the second set of criminal proceedings instituted against him; 3.     alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a confidential correspondence with his lawyer (Article 5 § 4 and Article 8 of the Convention) on account of the inspection of the documents transmitted to the applicant by his lawyer by the Prison Service. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Smatana v.   the   Czech Republic , no. 18642/04, §§ 101-103, 27 September 2007 Punzelt v.   the Czech Republic , no. 31315/96, §§ 73-81, 25 April 2000; Tariq v. the   Czech Republic , no. 75455/01, §§ 86-88, 91-96, 18 April 2006)? Should the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in both sets of criminal proceedings be assessed together (see Mitev v. Bulgaria , no.   40063/98, §§ 61-63 and §§ 101-103, 22 December 2004; Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §   135, 22 May 2012)?   2.     Did the length of the following proceedings whereby the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Smatana v.   the Czech Republic , no. 18642/04, §§ 128-131, 27   September 2007; Singh v. the Czech Republic , no. 60538/00, §§ 74-76, 25   January 2005): -     the applicant’s request for release filed on 8 February 2018, decided on by the Municipal Court on   12 February 2018, by the Regional Court on 15   March 2018 and, finally, by the Constitutional Court on 18   September 2018 (served on 24 September 2018); -     the applicant’s request for release filed on 3 July 2017, decided on by the Municipal Court on   19 July 2017, by the Regional Court on 10   August 2017 and, finally, by the Constitutional Court on 2 January 2019 (served on 9 January 2019); -     the applicant’s request for release filed on 29   April 2018, decided on by the Municipal Court on   8   June   2018, by the Regional Court on 12   July 2018 and, finally, by the Constitutional Court on 12   March 2019 (served on 13   March 2019)?   3.     Having regard to the applicant’s allegations that documents transmitted to him by his lawyer were repeatedly inspected by prison authorities, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1992, § 32-54, Series A no. 233; Laurent v. France , no. 28798/13, § 47, 24   May 2018 or Di Cecco v. Italy , no. 28169/06, § 20-28, 15   February 2011)?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1 19642/19 22/03/2019 Shahram Abdullah ZADEH 21/04/1971 Brno Czech, Iranian David ZAHUMENSKÝ   Michal POKORNÝ 2 28287/19 17/05/2019 Shahram Abdullah ZADEH 21/04/1971 Brno Czech, Iranian David ZAHUMENSKÝ   Michal POKORNÝ   Zdeněk KOUDELKA 3 34883/19 25/06/2019 Shahram Abdullah ZADEH 21/04/1971 Brno Czech, Iranian David ZAHUMENSKÝ   Michal POKORNÝ   Zdeněk KOUDELKA