FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF LEOCÁDIO DE LEMOS v. PORTUGAL
(Application no. 34122/23)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
19 May 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Leocádio de Lemos v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anne Louise Bormann, President,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 34122/23) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 September 2023 by a Portuguese national, Mr Joel Leocádio de Lemos (“the applicant”), who was born in 1984, lives in Silveira and was represented by Mr V. Carreto, a lawyer practising in Torres Vedras;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the length of the review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms H. Martins Leitão, Deputy Attorney‑General, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 28 April 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the alleged excessive length of the review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. The applicant relied on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention. 2. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for drug trafficking. On 10 November 2017 he was questioned by the investigating judge at the Torres Vedras Criminal Court. On the same day the investigating judge decided to remand him in custody. 3. On 27 November 2017 the applicant requested that the investigating judge place him under house arrest with electronic surveillance. That request was dismissed on 28 November 2017. 4. On 4 December 2017 the applicant appealed against the decision of the investigating judge to remand him in custody (see paragraph 2 above) to the Lisbon Court of Appeal. 5. On 5 December 2017 the Torres Vedras Criminal Court declared the appeal admissible. 6. On 5 January 2018 the public prosecutor at the Torres Vedras Criminal Court submitted observations on the applicant’s appeal. 7. On 23 January 2018 the file was sent to the Lisbon Court of Appeal. 8. On 30 January 2018 the public prosecutor at the Lisbon Court of Appeal issued an opinion on the appeal, pursuant to Article 416 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 1 February 2018 the applicant was notified of the opinion and given ten days to reply, pursuant to Article 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant replied on 8 February 2018. 9. On 28 February 2018 the Lisbon Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the investigating judge’s decision of 10 November 2017 to place the applicant in pre‑trial detention. 10. On 1 March 2018 the Lisbon Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant on 11 December 2017 against the decision of the investigating judge rejecting his request to be placed under house arrest with electronic surveillance. 11. On an unspecified date in 2018 the applicant brought an action against the State in the Lisbon Administrative Court, claiming 3,000 euros (EUR) for the damage caused by the alleged excessive length of the review of his pre‑trial detention. 12. On 25 June 2023 the Lisbon Administrative Court dismissed the action. It observed that the 30‑day time limit to decide the appeal in question set out in Article 219 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been complied with. It further noted that, as per a judgment of the Supreme Court of 16 March 2018, such an appeal neither suspended the proceedings nor barred the investigating judge from suspending the pre‑trial detention or replacing it with another measure. It took the view that the time taken to render a decision on the review was not therefore incompatible with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and that, in any event, it was necessary to ensure compliance with procedural rules, notably with the adversarial principle and the requirement for a three‑judge panel to give a decision on the appeals. 13. The applicant was released from pre‑trial detention on 28 November 2018. 14. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the examination of his appeal against his pre‑trial detention had been excessively long and that he had lacked an effective domestic remedy in that regard.

Outcome for Article 5: violation