CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2023

.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 } Published on 30 January 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 33435/18 Abdul KASEJA against Greece lodged on 4 July 2018 communicated on 10 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure to decide "speedily" an application for release from pre-trial detention and the alleged impossibility for the applicant to appear before the court when the latter was deciding on his application for release. On 6 November 2017 the investigating judge ordered the pre-trial detention of the applicant based on strong indications of guilt as regards the offences he was accused of. On 10 November 2017 the applicant applied for release before the Indictment Division of the Kavala Criminal Court of First Instance. Following a prosecutor’s proposal to reject his application, on 8   January 2018 the Indictment Division decided not to grant his request and on 15 January 2018 it delivered on that its order no. 5/2018. Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains of a violation in connection with the obligation to decide “speedily” when considering the lawfulness of the pre-trial detention. He further complains of the impossibility to appear before the court, be informed on the prosecutor’s proposal and submit his arguments as regards his pre-trial detention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?   2.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in particular as regards the principle of equality of arms?