Communicated on 5 April 2019<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 35207\/17
\nShahram Abdullah ZADEH against the Czech Republic
\nand 4 other applications
\n(see list appended)<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n The present applications concern similar legal questions.<\/p>\n The first applicant (applications nos. 35207\/17, 21437\/18, 42343\/18 and\u00a01662\/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\u00a0February 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\u00a0December 2016 and detained on remand on 4 December 2016. When his last application was lodged, the applicant was still detained on remand.<\/p>\n The second applicant (application no. 24756\/18), Mr Alexandr Jedli\u010dka, was arrested on 19 May 2017 on the suspicion of accepting a bribe. He was subsequently detained on remand on 20 May 2017.<\/p>\n The applications concern:<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0alleged violation of the applicants\u2019 right to a decision on the lawfulness of their detention be taken \u201cspeedily\u201d (Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention);<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0alleged violation of the first applicant\u2019s right to a remedy enabling him to challenge his detention at reasonable intervals (Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention);<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0alleged violation of the first applicant\u2019s right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial (Article 5 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Did the length of the following proceedings whereby the applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention:<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the first applicant\u2019s third request for release in the first set of criminal proceedings filed on 15 April 2015, decided on by the Regional Court on 17\u00a0April 2015 (the decision served on the same day), and by the High Court on 25\u00a0August 2015 (the decision served on 16 September 2015) and, finally, by the Constitutional Court on 26 October 2016 (the decision served on 3\u00a0November 2016);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the first applicant\u2019s fourth request for release in the first set of proceedings lodged on 27 July 2015, decided on by the Regional Court on 6\u00a0October 2015 (the decision served on the same day), and by the High Court on 10 November 2015 (the decision served on 23\u00a0November 2015) and, finally, by the Constitutional Court on 26 October 2016 (the decision served on 3 November 2016);<\/p>\n –\u00a0the first applicant\u2019s 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\u00a0January 2017 (the decision served on 20 February 2017) and by the Constitutional Court on 24\u00a0October 2017 (the decision served on 26\u00a0October 2017);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the first applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u00a0October 2017 (the decision served on 5 November 2017);<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0the second applicant\u2019s 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\u00a0July 2017), and by the Constitutional Court on 7 November 2017 (the decision served on 21\u00a0November 2017), comply with the \u201cspeediness\u201d requirement of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention (see Smatana v. the Czech Republic, no. 18642\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0128-131, 27\u00a0September 2007; Singh v. the Czech Republic, no. 60538\/00, \u00a7\u00a7 74-76, 25\u00a0January 2005)?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Has the first applicant\u2019s right to a remedy at reasonable intervals in respect of his pre-trial detention guaranteed under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention been respected in both sets of criminal proceedings initiated against him (see Bezicheri v. Italy, 25 October 1989, \u00a7 21, Series A no.\u00a0164)?<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Was the length of the first applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention in both sets of criminal proceedings initiated against him in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention (see Smatana v.\u00a0the\u00a0Czech Republic, no. 18642\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 101-103, 27\u00a0September 2007 Punzelt v.\u00a0the Czech Republic, no. 31315\/96, \u00a7\u00a7 73-81, 25 April 2000; Tariq v. the Czech Republic, no. 75455\/01, \u00a7\u00a7 86-88, 91-96, 18 April 2006)?<\/p>\n Should the length of the first applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention in both sets of criminal proceedings be assessed together (see Mitev v. Bulgaria, no.\u00a040063\/98, \u00a7\u00a7 61-63 and \u00a7\u00a7 101-103, 22 December 2004; Idalov v.\u00a0Russia [GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a0135, 22 May 2012)?<\/p>\n\n\n
\n <\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n Lodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicant<\/strong>
\nDate of birth<\/strong>
\nPlace of residence<\/strong>
\nNationality<\/strong><\/td>\nRepresented by<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 35207\/17<\/td>\n 03\/05\/2017<\/td>\n Shahram Abdullah ZADEH
\n21\/04\/1971
\nPrague
\nCzech, Iranian<\/td>\nMgr. David Zahumensk\u00fd<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 21437\/18<\/td>\n 26\/04\/2018<\/td>\n Shahram Abdullah ZADEH
\n21\/04\/1971
\nPrague
\nCzech, Iranian<\/td>\nMgr. David Zahumensk\u00fd<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 24756\/18<\/td>\n 11\/05\/2018<\/td>\n Alexandr JEDLI\u010cKA
\n23\/11\/1977
\nHole\u0161ov
\nCzech<\/td>\nJUDr. Michal Paule<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 42343\/18<\/td>\n 28\/08\/2018<\/td>\n Shahram Abdullah ZADEH
\n21\/04\/1971
\nPrague
\nCzech, Iranian<\/td>\nMgr. David Zahumensk\u00fd<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 1662\/19<\/td>\n 04\/05\/2018<\/td>\n Shahram Abdullah ZADEH
\n21\/04\/1971
\nPrague
\nCzech, Iranian<\/td>\nMgr. David Zahumensk\u00fd<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n