FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30897/96 by Ján MIREK against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 9 July 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää ,

Mrs E. Palm , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 January 1996,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the written submissions by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ján Mirek, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Erben, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Vršanský, their Agent.

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

On 22 May 1992 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court remanded the applicant in custody in the context of criminal proceedings in which the applicant was accused of a theft. Subsequently, the following relevant events occurred and the following decisions were taken.

The criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 2 September 1992, while the proceedings concerning the accusation of a theft were still pending, the applicant was accused of a murder. Both accusations were first dealt with in one set of proceedings. On 14 April 1993 the police investigator decided to deal with the accusation of murder in a separate set of proceedings.

1. Proceedings concerning the charge of theft

The Banská Bystrica Regional Court held the first hearing from 6 to 10 December 1993. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to exclude the presiding judge of the Regional Court the case had to be re-examined at first instance.

On 31 March 1995 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court convicted the applicant of a theft and of unauthorised possession of a firearm. A nine-year prison sentence was imposed.

The applicant appealed and alleged, inter alia , that his right of defence had not been respected.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a decision of 23 October 1996.

2. Proceedings concerning the charge of murder

On 14 November 1996 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant for murder before the Bratislava City Court.

On 9 January 1997 the Bratislava Regional Court (the former City Court) returned the case to the public prosecutor.

On 5 January 1998 the public prosecutor filed a new indictment.

On 22 July 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.

On 18 November 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and sent the case back to the Regional Court.

On 30 July 1999 the latter acquitted the applicant. On 23 February 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and acquitted the applicant for reasons different from those which the Regional Court had invoked.

Decisions relating to the applicant’s detention

The Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand several times in the context of the proceedings concerning his indictment for theft.

On 29 June 1995 the applicant was released on the ground that his detention on remand had already lasted three years, the maximum period then permissible under Slovakian law.

Upon his release the applicant was immediately re-arrested. On the same day the public prosecutor requested that the applicant should be detained on remand in connection with the charge of murder.

On 30 June 1995 the Banská Bystrica District Court ordered the applicant’s release.

On 6 September 1995 the applicant was arrested, and on 7 September 1995 the Banská Bystrica District Court remanded him in custody in the context of the proceedings concerning his charge of murder.

The applicant challenged his detention alleging that it had exceeded the maximum period permissible under Slovakian law. The Banská Bystrica Regional Court dismissed the complaint on 26 September 1995.

Subsequently the applicant’s detention on remand was extended several times. The applicant filed several applications for release which were to no avail.

On 12 February 1997 the Supreme Court released the applicant from custody and ordered that he should immediately start serving the nine-year prison sentence which had been imposed in the proceedings leading to his conviction of theft. The applicant served the sentence until 13 April 2000.

Restrictions imposed in the context of the proceedings concerning the charge of murder

On 19 February 1997 the Bratislava Regional Court ordered that the applicant’s correspondence should be controlled, that all visits of the applicant in the prison were to be authorised by the Regional Court or the competent public prosecutor, and that the applicant should be prevented from having any contacts with his co-accused in the proceedings concerning the charge of murder.

On 19 March 1997 the Supreme Court amended the Regional Court’s decision in that the above restrictions were limited to a period expiring on 12 February 1998.

On 2 July 1997 the Banská Bystrica Regional Prosecutor informed the applicant that his partner and brother-in-law had not been allowed to visit him in prison.

On 24 July 1997 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that he was entitled to be visited by his close relatives only once every six weeks. The applicant was further informed that his partner could only visit him after she had been heard by the court dealing with the case.

Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

On 16 July 1997 the applicant filed a petition with the Constitutional Court. He alleged a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3, of Articles 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

On 18 October 2001 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s constitutional rights had been violated as a result of the excessive length of his detention on remand in the context of the proceedings concerning the charge of murder, and also as a result of the restrictions imposed in the context of those proceedings. The Constitutional Court dismissed the remaining complaints of the applicant.

COMPLAINTS

1. Under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention the applicant complained that his detention on remand had been unlawful, that its length was excessive, and that his applications for release had not been decided upon speedily.

2. The applicant further complained about various procedural shortcomings in the two sets of criminal proceedings against him and about the length of those proceedings. He relied on Article 6 §§  1, 2 and 3 (d), on Article 7 § 1 of the Convention as well as on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

3. Finally, the applicant alleged a violation of Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention in that his right to receive visitors in prison had been restricted and that his correspondence had been interfered with.

THE LAW

On 25 June 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the respondent Government:

“I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay 300,000 (three hundred thousand) Slovakian korunas to Mr Ján Mirek . This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of the adoption of the decision by which the Court will take note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights . This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

On 19 June 2002 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant :

“I note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me the sum of 300,000 (three hundred thousand) Slovakian korunas covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of the adoption of the decision by which the Court will take note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights .

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the Slovak Republic in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.”

The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols and considers that there is no reason which would justify the continuation of the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of the Court).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President