Communicated on 8 November 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 22692/15 Ivan PATALAKH against Germany lodged on 11 May 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant, a national of the Russian Federation, was arrested on 30 October 2013 based on an arrest warrant of the Frankfurt/Main District Court of that same day. The application concerns the speediness of the periodic judicial review of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention by the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal and, linked thereto, the lawfulness of the detention.

On 28 July 2014 the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal ordered the continuation of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention and that the case-file be submitted to the Court of Appeal by 28 October 2014 at the latest for the subsequent review. On 24 October 2014 the Frankfurt/Main General Prosecutor requested that the continuation of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention be ordered and submitted the case-file to the Court of Appeal. On 15 April 2015 the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal ordered the continuation of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, with the respective decision being issued on 13 May 2015 and served on the applicant on 15 May 2015.

On 21 April 2015 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court, which declined to accept the case for adjudication without providing reasons on 27 April 2015 (file no. 2 BvR 726/15).

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the length of the proceedings of the present case, by which the lawfulness of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was reviewed following the request of the Frankfurt/Main General Prosecutor of 24 October 2014 until the service of the decision of the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal on the applicant on 15 May 2015, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the length of the proceedings to review the lawfulness of the applicant ’ s detention render the detention arbitrary, considering that Article 122 § 4 second sentence of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that the review of remand detention exceeding a period of six months must be repeated no later than every three months?