CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 September 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 19812/18 Alberto FERREIRA ESTEVAM against Portugal lodged on 16 April 2018 communicated on 31 August 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant for alleged aggravated drug trafficking. On 14 December 2016, the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge and remanded in pre-trial detention. On 16 December 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal to challenge the lawfulness of the decision remanding him in custody. On 4 April 2017 the Lisbon Court of Appeal quashed the investigating judge’s decision and revoked the pre-trial detention. The applicant was released immediately. On 5 April 2018 the Administrative and Tax Court of Sintra dismissed the action lodged by the applicant against the State in which he claimed 2,000   euros in damages for the alleged excessive length of the review regarding his pre-trial detention. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the excessive length of the court of appeal’s review regarding the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the length of the proceedings in the instant case, in which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, comply with the requirement of speediness under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Ilnseher v.   Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 251-56, 4 December 2018; and, mutatis mutandis, Martins O’Neill Pedrosa v. Portugal , no.   55214/15, §§ 39-41 and 46, 14 February 2017)?