CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juillet 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 24 July 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49652/22 Pavel GAMMER against Estonia lodged on 12 October 2022 communicated on 4 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of pre-trial detention. The applicant was accused of several criminal offences. He was taken in custody on 13 February 2018 and a court order for his detention was issued on 14 February 2018. His detention was repeatedly extended during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings and during the trial stage the courts repeatedly verified the continued need to detain him. At the time of lodging his application with the Court on 12 October 2022, the applicant remained in detention. He complains that his excessively long pre-trial detention is in violation of Article 5 § 3 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 (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania , no. 36249/14, §§ 74-80, 2 May 2017; Chyła v. Poland , no.   8384/08, §§ 115-23, 3 November 2015; Trifković v. Croatia , no.   36653/09, § 121, 6 November 2012; and, in the same vein, Abuladze v.   Estonia [Committee], no. 12928/20, §§ 15-29, 24 January 2023)? In particular, did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the applicant’s continued detention, did the competent authorities consider alternative preventive measures and display special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, as required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   2.     The applicant is invited to submit court judgments concerning the possible appeals he lodged against the decisions to either prolong his pre-trial detention or to consider his continued pre-trial detention justified. The parties are also asked to submit other documents relevant to the progress of the proceedings in question.