CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 10 December 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 25688/12 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KALUGIN against Ukraine lodged on 11 April 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations concerning unlawfulness and length of his pre-trial detention and the trial court’s failure to properly examine his requests for release. On 11 January 2012 the applicant was arrested in the context of the criminal investigation against him. He complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention between 11 March and 27 April 2012 was not authorised by a judicial decision and that the decision of the trial court of 27 April 2012 ordering his detention pending trial was unjustified and indicated no time limits. The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention from 11 January to 13 December 2012 was unreasonable and unjustified. He further complains under Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention that the trial court failed to properly examine his requests for release.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s detention between 11 March and 27 April 2012 and his subsequent detention ordered by the court on 27 April 2012 free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no.   40107/02, §§ 71 and 74, 10 February 2011)?   2.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5   §   4 of the Convention (see Molodorych v. Ukraine , no. 2161/02, §   108, 28   October 2010)?