CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juin 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 }   Communicated on 1 June 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29417/13 Mihail BOLDEA against Romania lodged on 16 April 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the suspicion of corruption-related offences between 27 March 2012 and 22   November 2013. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the measure lasted unjustifiably long and was not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons on the part of the domestic courts. He also complains that the competent national authorities did not display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings as the courts commenced the hearing of the defendants in April 2013, more than ten months after the indictment had been issued, and adjourned the sessions several times for failure to secure the presence in court of defendants placed under custody. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the measure?