CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 4 December 2020 Published on 21 December 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 77948/13 László BÍRÓ against Ukraine lodged on 5 December 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations under Article 5 of the Convention regarding the unlawfulness of his arrest and further detention. The applicant, a Hungarian national, complains under Article   5   §   1 of the Convention that: - on 10 June 2011 he was arrested by the police on suspicion of drug trafficking, and that his arrest was formally documented on 11 June 2011. On 14 June 2011 the court ordered his detention on remand; - he has spent 4 days in detention without a court order, whereas the domestic legislation allows detention of a suspect without a court order up to 72 hours from the moment of arrest; - his pre-trial detention ordered by the court expired on 25 June 2013 and it was extended for a further term on 16 July 2013; therefore his detention between 25 June and 16 July 2013 was unlawful as it was not covered by a court order. The application furthermore concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention from 10 June 2011 to 23   December 2013 was unjustified as the courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for that.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     With regard to the alleged events between 10 and 11 June 2011, was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Osypenko v. Ukraine , no.   4634/04, § 49, 9   November 2010 and Smolik v. Ukraine , no. 11778/05, § 46, 19   January   2012)?   2.     Was the applicant’s detention from 10 to 14 June 2011 without a court order in compliance with the domestic legislation and Article   5   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     What was the legal basis for the applicant’s detention between 25   June and 16 July 2013? Was it compatible with the requirements of Article 5   §   1(c) (see Yeloyev v. Ukraine , no. 17283/02, §§ 49-51, 6   November 2008)?   4.     Did the decisions of the domestic courts ordering the applicant’s detention on remand and extending his further detention contain sufficient reasons to justify that detention within the meaning of Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (see, for example, Kharchenko v. Ukraine , no.   40107/02, §§   79 ‑ 81, 10 February 2011; and Ignatov v. Ukraine , no. 40583/15, §§   40 ‑ 42, 15 December 2016)?