CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 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 } Published on 4 May 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 52997/20 Ioannis SMBOKOS against Greece lodged on 26 November 2020 communicated on 15 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. By order no. 3/2015 of the Athens Investigating Judge, dated 20   November 2015, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on charges of bribery and money laundering. This order remained inactive as the applicant was already being detained on the basis of previous criminal convictions. It was activated on 6 August 2019 when the applicant was formally released from detention on account of prior convictions. On 2 October 2019 the applicant submitted a request for release from pre ‑ trial detention with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal in the context of his criminal trial. On 9 October 2019 the court dismissed the request by a majority and published an extract which contained no reasons concerning the continued pre-trial detention. On 21 January 2020, by its judgment no.   484/2020, the same court found the applicant guilty of money laundering and imposed a 10-year prison sentence, suspended on conditions that the applicant appeal the conviction, not exit the country and regularly appear at a local police station. On 23 January 2020 the applicant lodged an appeal against his conviction and was released. On 27 May 2020 judgment no.   484/2020, which also included the court’s decision of 9 October 2019 regarding pre-trial detention, became finalised, its reasoning thus becoming available to the applicant. Relying on Articles 5 § 4 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the decision of 9 October 2019 by the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal not to lift his pre-trial detention did not contain any reasons. The reasoning became available only on 27 May 2020. He complained that, as a result, he was deprived of the possibility to effectively apply anew for release at a regular interval, and that the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention had been excessively lengthy. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did he have at his disposal a procedure to obtain access to the reasoning of the decision of 9   October 2019 of the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal prior to 27   May 2020? The parties are requested to submit documents and examples of decisions of the domestic authorities relevant for the evaluation of the effectiveness of such proceedings. 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, did the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal provide adequate reasons in support of its decision of 9 October 2019 (see Oravec v.   Croatia , no. 51249/11, §§ 64-65, 11 July 2017, and G.B. and Others v.   Turkey , no. 4633/15, § 176, 17 October 2019, with further references) in proceedings which complied with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§   251-56, 4 December 2018)?