CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Communicated on 9 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5203/20 Edmundas JOKUBAUSKAS against Lithuania lodged on 15 January 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns length of pre-trial detention and the right to compensation. In 2011 the applicant was suspected of drug-related crimes. From 23   December 2011 to 21 June 2013 he was detained on remand. In 2017 he was acquitted on some of the charges, and the case in respect of the remaining charges was discontinued as time-barred. The applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State, claiming damages for, inter alia , lengthy and unjustified pre-trial detention, but his claim was dismissed. The courts held that there had been a reasonable suspicion that he had committed criminal offences and that the pre-trial detention had been ordered in accordance with domestic law. The applicant complains that his detention on remand was excessive and unjustified and that he was not awarded any compensation. He invokes Article 5 § 1 (c) and 5 § 5 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty during its entire period, were those grounds “relevant” and “sufficient”, and did the national authorities display “special diligence” in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 87, 5   July 2016)?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts examining his civil claim interpret and apply the domestic law in the spirit of Article 5 of the Convention (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no.   36760/06, §   182, ECHR 2012, and Shulgin v. Ukraine , no. 29912/05, §   65, 8   December 2011)?