They relied on Article   5   §   4 of the Convention which reads as follows: “4.

Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-4 - Contrôle par un tribunal;Contrôle de la légalité de la détention)

Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-4 - Contrôle par un tribunal;Contrôle de la légalité de la détention)

    There has accordingly been a violation of Article   5 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 24.

    The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of her detention had been unreasonable and under Article   5 §   4 of the Convention that the domestic

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

Belgique - 26402/17 Arrêt 18.5.2021 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-4 Contrôle de la légalité de la détention Projet d’arrêt du conseiller-rapporteur communiqué avant l’audience de la Cour de cassation

    The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained principally of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 6.

He relied on Article 5 §   4 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 5 § 4 “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention.

THE LAW         ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 5.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of their detention.

On 5 March 2010 the applicant was indicted. The Constitutional Court dismissed his subsequent appeal based on his complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on 6   October 2011.

THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 6.     The applicant complained of the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of his detention.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained of the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention.

THE FACTS 4.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 5.