Last Updated on April 28, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 5 April 2019
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 35207/17
Shahram Abdullah ZADEH against the Czech Republic
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present applications concern similar legal questions.
The first applicant (applications nos. 35207/17, 21437/18, 42343/18 and 1662/19), Mr Shahram Abdullah Zadeh, is a Czech and Iranian citizen against whom two sets of criminal proceedings are currently pending in the Czech Republic. The first set of proceedings was instituted against him on the suspicion of being part of an organised criminal group and of tax evasion. The applicant was arrested on 19 March 2014 and subsequently detained on remand on 21 March 2014. He was released on bail on 4 February 2016. The second set of proceedings was instituted against him on the suspicion of being part of an organized criminal group, false accusation and favouritism. He was arrested for the second time on 2 December 2016 and detained on remand on 4 December 2016. When his last application was lodged, the applicant was still detained on remand.
The second applicant (application no. 24756/18), Mr Alexandr Jedlička, was arrested on 19 May 2017 on the suspicion of accepting a bribe. He was subsequently detained on remand on 20 May 2017.
The applications concern:
1. alleged violation of the applicants’ right to a decision on the lawfulness of their detention be taken “speedily” (Article 5 § 4 of the Convention);
2. alleged violation of the first applicant’s right to a remedy enabling him to challenge his detention at reasonable intervals (Article 5 § 4 of the Convention);
3. alleged violation of the first applicant’s right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention) on account of detention lasting 1 year, 10 months and 14 days in the first set of criminal proceedings and 1 year, 8 months and 24 days in the second set of criminal proceedings instituted against him; all together, the applicant spent in detention 3 years, 7 months and 8 days.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Did the length of the following proceedings whereby the applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention:
– the first applicant’s third request for release in the first set of criminal proceedings filed on 15 April 2015, decided on by the Regional Court on 17 April 2015 (the decision served on the same day), and by the High Court on 25 August 2015 (the decision served on 16 September 2015) and, finally, by the Constitutional Court on 26 October 2016 (the decision served on 3 November 2016);
– the first applicant’s fourth request for release in the first set of proceedings lodged on 27 July 2015, decided on by the Regional Court on 6 October 2015 (the decision served on the same day), and by the High Court on 10 November 2015 (the decision served on 23 November 2015) and, finally, by the Constitutional Court on 26 October 2016 (the decision served on 3 November 2016);
– the first applicant’s complaint lodged on 4 December 2016 against a decision to detain him on remand issued in the second set of proceedings on the same day, decided on by the Regional Court on 12 January 2017 (the decision served on 20 February 2017) and by the Constitutional Court on 24 October 2017 (the decision served on 26 October 2017);
– the first applicant’s complaint against the decision of the Municipal Court of 11 April 2017 (the decision served on the same day) to keep the applicant in pre-trial detention issued upon the public prosecutor’s motion of 24 March 2017, decided on by the Regional Court on 25 May 2017 (the decision served on 21 June 2017) and by the Constitutional Court on 31 October 2017 (the decision served on 5 November 2017);
– the second applicant’s complaint lodged on 20 May 2017 against a decision to detain him on remand issued on the same day, decided on by the Regional Court on 22 June 2017 (the decision served on 11 July 2017), and by the Constitutional Court on 7 November 2017 (the decision served on 21 November 2017), comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Smatana v. the Czech Republic, no. 18642/04, §§ 128-131, 27 September 2007; Singh v. the Czech Republic, no. 60538/00, §§ 74-76, 25 January 2005)?
2. Has the first applicant’s right to a remedy at reasonable intervals in respect of his pre-trial detention guaranteed under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention been respected in both sets of criminal proceedings initiated against him (see Bezicheri v. Italy, 25 October 1989, § 21, Series A no. 164)?
3. Was the length of the first applicant’s pre-trial detention in both sets of criminal proceedings initiated against him in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Smatana v. the Czech Republic, no. 18642/04, §§ 101-103, 27 September 2007 Punzelt v. the Czech Republic, no. 31315/96, §§ 73-81, 25 April 2000; Tariq v. the Czech Republic, no. 75455/01, §§ 86-88, 91-96, 18 April 2006)?
Should the length of the first applicant’s pre-trial detention in both sets of criminal proceedings be assessed together (see Mitev v. Bulgaria, no. 40063/98, §§ 61-63 and §§ 101-103, 22 December 2004; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 135, 22 May 2012)?
| Application no. | Lodged on | Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality |
Represented by | |
| 1. | 35207/17 | 03/05/2017 | Shahram Abdullah ZADEH 21/04/1971 Prague Czech, Iranian |
Mgr. David Zahumenský |
| 2. | 21437/18 | 26/04/2018 | Shahram Abdullah ZADEH 21/04/1971 Prague Czech, Iranian |
Mgr. David Zahumenský |
| 3. | 24756/18 | 11/05/2018 | Alexandr JEDLIČKA 23/11/1977 Holešov Czech |
JUDr. Michal Paule |
| 4. | 42343/18 | 28/08/2018 | Shahram Abdullah ZADEH 21/04/1971 Prague Czech, Iranian |
Mgr. David Zahumenský |
| 5. | 1662/19 | 04/05/2018 | Shahram Abdullah ZADEH 21/04/1971 Prague Czech, Iranian |
Mgr. David Zahumenský |
Leave a Reply