CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 17 January 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31775/16 Slobodan ŠARANOVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 2 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lawfulness and length of the applicant’s detention, and an alleged lack of reasoning of the Constitutional Court’s decision. The applicant has died in the meantime (after he had lodged an application), and his wife expressed her interest to pursue the proceedings. The applicant complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. He submitted, in particular, that: (a) his detention between 15 November and 15   December 2014 was unlawful as there was no decision on detention for that period due to the failure of the domestic bodies to regularly review his detention. In any event, the detention could last six months at most without an indictment, but in his case it had lasted for more than two years without the indictment having entered into force; (b) the decisions extending his detention were insufficiently reasoned as the reasoning contained therein was copied from one decision to another; and (c) the Constitutional Court’s decision lacked reasoning in respect of his complaints. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention after 22   October 2014, when an indictment was sent back to the Prosecution Office, and/or between 15 November and 15 December 2014 “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? Were the statutory time ‑ limits of 30 days and two months specified in Article 179 § 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2009 mandatory or not, and whether the relevant legislation was foreseeable in its application (see Mugoša v. Montenegro , no.   76522/12, § 56, 21 June 2016)? The Government are also invited to inform the Court if and when exactly an indictment against the applicant entered into force, and to submit the relevant documents in that regard.   2.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention (see Bulatović v. Montenegro , no. 67320/10, §§ 144-149, 22 July 2014; Lakatoš and Others v. Serbia , no. 3363/08, § 97, 7 January 2014; Korchuganova v.   Russia , no. 75039/01, §§ 70-77, 8 June 2006; Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 159, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV; and Herczegfalvy v. Austria , 24   September 1992, § 71, Series A no. 244)? Were there “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the applicant’s pre-trial detention, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Lakatoš and Others , cited above, § 97; Đermanović v.   Serbia , no.   48497/06, §§ 76-82, 23   February 2010; Korchuganova , cited above, §§   72-73; and Letellier v.   France , 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207)?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis , Hiro Balani v. Spain , 9   December 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 303 ‑ B, and Helle v. Finland , 19   December 1997, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ VIII), having regard to how the Constitutional Court’s decision of 29 May 2015 addresses the applicant’s complaints, in particular the one relating to the lawfulness of his detention.