CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 juin 2025

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 5 June 2023 and on 15 July 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 30483/22 Štefan Žiga against Slovakia lodged on 10 June 2022 communicated on 15 May 2023 and 25 June 2025   The Subject matter of the case and Questions to the parties is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of Article 5 § 1 c) of the Convention, given that the testimonies of the collaborating witnesses collected in the period between 15   July and 22 September 2021 were invalidated with effect ex tunc by the Prosecutor General in his decision of 26 January 2022, was the evidence in the case file at the time of the applicant’s arrest and his subsequent detention sufficient to convince an objective observer that he could have committed the offence with which he was charged under the first count of the charge brought against him? Did the evidence, relied on by the Prosecutor General in his decision of 26 January 2022, constitute alone a sufficient basis for a   reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence under the first count of the charge? 2.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the judges who ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, and who examined the applicant’s objections lodged against that decision, fulfil their obligation under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to provide relevant and sufficient grounds for the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v.   the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-102, 5   July   2016)?