CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 16 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 14089/25 Fernando KOLOMPAR against Serbia lodged on 12 April 2025 communicated on 23 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings for robbery and theft brought against the applicant in which the Subotica High Court and the Novi Sad Court of Appeals, when extending his pre-trial detention, relied, inter alia , on other pending criminal proceedings against him as a ground for maintaining his detention and stated that, if released, he would “continue committing criminal offences”. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court also ruled against the applicant. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the decisions extending his detention, worded in such a manner, were not based on the relevant grounds for detention under Serbian law and that they prejudged his criminal culpability in other criminal proceedings still pending against him. In addition, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that these decisions also gave rise to a breach of his right to be presumed innocent. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article   5 of the Convention?   1.1     In particular, in view of the reasons relied on by the national authorities for extending the applicant’s detention, has there been a violation of applicant’s rights under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?   2.1     In particular, was the applicant’s presumption of innocence breached by the decisions of the Subotica High Court and the Novi Sad Court of Appeals which referred to other ongoing criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant as ground for continuing his pre-trial detention ( see Matijašević v. Serbia , no. 23037/04, §§ 47-51, ECHR 2006-X; Perica Oreb v.   Croatia , no. 20824/09, §§ 142-148, 31 October 2013, and Kangers v.   Latvia , no.   35726/10, §§   54-62, 14 March 2019)?   2.2     Was the applicant’s presumption of innocence breached by the wording used in the decisions of the Subotica High Court and the Novi Sad Court of Appeals, which stated that, if released from detention, the applicant would “continue committing criminal offences”?