CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 28 November 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 5652/18 Zoltán DÁVID against Hungary lodged on 12 January 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns two periods of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, namely, 23 July to 2 August and 23 October to 9 November 2017. During these periods, the applicant was detained without the respective prolongation orders communicated to him or his lawyer as was required by domestic law. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES In the periods 23 July to 2 August and 23 October to 9 November 2017, was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s pre-trial detention maintained “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see, mutatis mutandis, Gajcsi v. Hungary , no. 34503/03, § 21, 3 October 2006; Lokpo and Touré v.   Hungary , no. 10816/10, § 24, 20 September 2011; X.Y. v. Hungary , no.   43888/08, § 28, 19 March 2013)?