CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Published on 28 October 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 34122/23 Joel LEOCÁDIO DE LEMOS against Portugal lodged on 4 September 2023 communicated on 11 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a speedy judicial review concerning the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, ordered by the investigating judge at the North Lisbon Court on 10   November 2017. On 25 June 2023 the Lisbon Administrative Court dismissed an action lodged by the applicant against the State in which he claimed 3,000   euros (EUR) for the alleged excessive length of the review proceedings regarding his pre-trial detention. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the excessive length of the Court of Appeal’s review proceedings regarding the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the length of the appeal proceedings in the instant case that ended with a judgment of 28 February 2018, in which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, comply with the requirement of speediness under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (instead of under Article   5 §   3, as submitted by the applicant) (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos.   10211/12 and 27505/14, §§   251 ‑ 256, 4 December 2018, and Martins O’Neill Pedrosa v. Portugal , no.   55214/15, §§ 39-41 and 46, 14   February 2017)?