CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 avril 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 May 2024     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 9842/23 Bela DIMOVIČ against Serbia lodged on 18 February 2023 communicated on 17 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a repeat offender. On 14 October 2019 he was arrested on suspicion of robbery. On the next day the Subotica Court of First Instance, having heard the applicant, ordered his detention on remand for thirty days owing to the risk of his reoffending and absconding. On different dates between 12 November 2019 and 6 May 2020 the competent courts extended his pre-trial detention on several occasions. In addition to the above grounds, the courts also relied on the risk of his obstructing justice by influencing witnesses and suspected accomplices who had not yet been examined. Those decisions were upheld at second instance. Both the first- and second-instance courts did not hear the applicant when extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention. On 22 December 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed his constitutional appeal in which he complained about the lack of an oral hearing when extension orders had been made. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention because the domestic courts did not hear him when considering the extension of his pre ‑ trial detention for almost seven months.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the Court’s case law (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no.   31195/96, 25 March 1999; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, 22 May 2012); and Stevan Petrović v. Serbia , nos.   6097/16 and 28999/19, §§ 153-54, 20 April 2021), was the procedure before the domestic courts in respect of the extension orders taken between 12 November 2019 and 6 May 2020 in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, were the courts required to hold an oral hearing when extending his pre-trial detention during the above-mentioned period?