CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s750DB8D0 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 45594/11 Adalbert Cornel SZEKELY against Romania lodged on 15 July 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Adalbert Cornel Szekely, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Satu-Mare. He is represented before the Court by Mr   S.   Bogdan, a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. At the material time the applicant was a lawyer. On 10   March   2011 a criminal complaint was lodged against him on account that he had asked money from two defendants he represented in exchange for his   intervention to the judges in charge with the criminal proceedings against them. On 2 May 2011 the police initiated a criminal investigation against the applicant. On 3 May 2011 the Cluj Court of Appeal ordered his pre-trial detention for twenty-nine days. On 23 May 2011 a bill of indictment was issued and the case was registered with the Cluj Court of Appeal. The applicant was represented in the proceedings by a lawyer of his   choice. The applicant’s detention was extended every thirty days by interlocutory judgments of the Cluj Court of Appeal. By an interlocutory judgment of 8 October 2011 the Cluj Court of Appeal again extended the applicant’s detention. The applicant challenged this judgment asking his release from prison. A hearing was scheduled by the High Court of Cassation and Justice for 12   October   2011. The applicant through his lawyer submitted a written request with the High Court of Cassation and Justice asking the adjournment of the hearing on the ground that on the same day and at the same hour the Cluj Court of Appeal had scheduled a hearing on the merits of his case. On 12 October 2011 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s request and appointed an ex officio lawyer. After hearing the prosecutor and the ex officio lawyer, it dismissed the applicant’s appeal maintaining his pre-trial detention. The applicant’s pre-trial detention lasted until 23   March   2012 when the High   Court of Cassation and Justice ordered its replacement with the obligation not to leave the country. According to the case file as it stands, the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first-instance court. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 c) of the Convention that he was unlawfully arrested on 2   May   2011. 2.     Relying on Article 5   §   3 of the Convention the applicant complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the extension of his   detention by the domestic courts without providing sufficient reasons. 3.     The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he was denied adversarial proceedings in the review of his continued detention as on 12   October   2011 the High Court of Cassation had dismissed his   appeal against the detention order in his and his chosen lawyer’s absence. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his continued pre-trial detention in conformity with Article   5   §   4 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms observed during the hearing held before the High   Court of Cassation and Justice on 12   October   2011?