Published on 6 April 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 34916/16 Manuel Paulo GOMES COSTA against Portugal lodged on 9 June 2016 communicated on 16 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention ( prisão preventiva ) at the prison of the judicial police of Porto between 15 December 2010 and 6 September 2011. It also concerns the civil proceedings lodged by the applicant with the District Court of Póvoa de Varzim in which he claimed compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention.

Without relying on any provisions of the Convention, the applicant complains that his pre-trial detention was unjustified and lengthy and that he was not awarded any compensation. The complaint raises issues under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 of the Convention.

Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the decision of the domestic courts rejecting his claim for compensation for his unlawful detention breached the presumption of innocence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s deprivation of his liberty between 15 December 2010 and 6 September 2011 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 74, 22 October 2018 and Qing v. Portugal , no. 69861/11, §§ 44-45, 5 November 2015)?

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?

In particular, were the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts in their decisions to extend the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention relevant and sufficient (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 87-91, 5 July 2016 and Qing, cited above, §§ 56-59)?

3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention allegedly in contravention of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts examining his civil claim interpret and apply the domestic law in the spirit of Article 5 of the Convention (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012)?

4. Is the domestic courts ’ reasoning in their decision to reject the applicant ’ s claim for compensation for an unlawful detention in contravention of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention? (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR; Bok v. the Netherlands , no. 45482/06, §§ 37-38, 18 January 2011 and Lorenzetti v. Italy , no. 32075/09, §§ 42-46, 10 April 2012)?