The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), sitting as the Fourth Section, delivered its judgment in Leocádio de Lemos v. Portugal (Application no. 34122/23), ruling in favour of the applicant and finding the Portuguese State in violation of Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Portugal was ordered to pay the applicant compensation of €3,250.

Article 5 § 4 ECHR enshrines the right of every person deprived of their liberty to bring proceedings before a court so that it may decide speedily on the lawfulness of the detention — the so-called conventional habeas corpus. The provision requires not only that such review be available, but that it be conducted with the promptness demanded by the situation of deprivation of liberty. A violation typically arises when domestic courts fail to rule on applications for review of detention within a reasonable time.

 Article 5 § 4 ECHR: "Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."

 Portugal's condemnation fits a recurring pattern in ECtHR case law identifying shortcomings in the judicial review of custodial measures under Portuguese law. The Strasbourg Court has consistently held that delays in examining applications for review of pre-trial detention — as well as potential inadequacies in the reasoning of decisions upholding deprivation of liberty — constitute an autonomous violation of the Convention, irrespective of the substantive lawfulness of the detention.

From a practical standpoint, this ruling has significant implications for the defence of defendants held in pre-trial detention. The judgment strengthens the legal arguments available to seek release on the grounds of delay in reviewing the custodial measure and to support claims for compensation for unlawful or irregular detention. ECtHR case law is directly invocable before domestic courts and constitutes an independent basis for State liability.

TOL Legal Team closely monitors developments in ECtHR case law on fundamental rights and criminal procedure, and provides specialist advice on cases with a European Convention dimension, including preparation of applications to the Strasbourg Court and reliance on ECtHR judgments before domestic courts.

▸  ECtHR, Fourth Section · Leocádio de Lemos v. Portugal · Judgment 19 May 2026 · App. no. 34122/23 · ECHR, Art. 5 § 4