CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 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 } Published on 18 September 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 18641/18 Miroslav PAPUGA against Serbia lodged on 5 April 2018 communicated on 1 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the reasoning offered therefor. In particular, the applicant was charged in connection with a nightclub fire-related incident which had caused the death of six people. He was in pre-trial detention from 2 April 2012 until 23 June 2014. The applicant’s detention was extended on numerous occasions, mostly with reference to the risk of “social disturbance” that could be caused by his release given the gravity of the alleged crime in question. Under Article   5   of the Convention the applicant complains about the said length of his pre-trial detention and the reasoning offered by the national courts in this regard. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and/or the reasoning offered by the domestic courts therefor in breach of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention (see, for example, Radonjić and Romić , no. 43674/16, §§ 61-70 and 77, 4 April 2023)?