THIRD SECTION

Application no . 45594/11 Adalbert Cornel SZEKELY against Romania lodged on 15 July 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Adalbert Cornel Szekely , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Satu-Mare . He is rep resented before the Court by Mr S. Bogdan , a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

At the material time the applicant was a lawyer. On 10 March 2011 a criminal complaint was lodged against him on account that he had asked money from two defendants he represented in exchange for his intervention to the judges in charge with the criminal proceedings against them.

On 2 May 2011 the police initiated a criminal inves tigation against the applicant.

On 3 May 2011 the Cluj Court of Appeal ordered his pre-trial detention for twenty-nine days.

On 23 May 20 11 a bill of indictment was issued and the case was registered with the Cluj Court of Appeal.

The applicant was represented in the proceedings by a lawyer of his choice.

The applicant ’ s detention was extended every thirty days by interlocutory judgmen ts of the Cluj Court of Appeal.

By an interlocutory judgment of 8 October 2011 the Cluj Court of Appeal again extended the applicant ’ s detention.

The applicant challenged this judgment asking his release from prison. A hearing was scheduled by the High Court of Cassation and Justice for 12 October 2011. The applicant through his lawyer submitted a written request with the High Court of Cassation and Justice asking the adjournment of the hearing on the ground that on the same day and at the same hour the Cluj Court of Appeal had scheduled a hearing on the merits of his case .

On 12 October 2011 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant ’ s request and appointed an ex officio lawyer. After hearing the prosecutor and the ex officio lawyer, it dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal maintaining his pre-tria l detention.

The applicant ’ s pre- trial detention lasted until 23 March 2012 when the High Court of Cassation and Justice ordered its replacement with the obligation not to leave the country.

According to the case file as it stands, the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first-instance court.

COMPLAINTS

1 . The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 c) of the Convention that he was unlawfully arrested on 2 May 2011 .

2 . Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention the applicant complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial det ention and the extension of his detention by the domestic courts without providing sufficient reasons.

3 . The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he was denied adversarial proceedings in the review of h is continued detention as on 12 October 2011 the High Court of Cassation had dismissed his appeal against the detention order in his and his chosen lawyer ’ s absence.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the p rocedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his continued pre-trial detention in conformity wit h Article 5 § 4 of the Convention ? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms observed during the hearing held before th e High Court of Cassation and Justice on 12 October 2011?