FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 17086/19 and 58230/19 Dominik KRÁTKY against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Péter Paczolay , President, Alena Poláčková , Gilberto Felici , judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application s lodged on 20 March and 24 October 2019 respectively,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

Both applications were lodged by the applicant, Mr Dominik Kr át ky , a Slovak national, who was born in 1991 and is detained in Banská Bystrica . He was represented by Mr P. Kuric , a lawyer practising in Žilina, and Mr R. Toman , a lawyer practising in Bratislava.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the judicial review of detention were communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”), represented by their Co-Agent, Ms M. Bálintová , from the Ministry of Justice.

The applicant lodged a request for release with the prosecutor on 19 March 2018. The latter dismissed it and transmitted the casefile to the Specialised Criminal Court on 3 April 2018. On 12 April 2018 the court dismissed the request and on 23 April 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s interlocutory appeal. The decision was served on 7 May 2018. On 22 June 2018 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint which the Constitutional Court dismissed on 4 September 2018 by decision no. III. ÚS 337/2018, served on the applicant ’ s lawyer on 8 October 2018.

The Constitutional Court found that, although he was represented by a lawyer, in his constitutional complaint against the ordinary courts, the applicant had not submitted any arguments against the conduct of the prosecutor. As a result, the Constitutional Court could not examine the period during which the applicant ’ s request for release had been pending before the prosecutor and such period could not be considered to the courts ’ detriment. The length of the judicial review of detention before the ordinary courts had not been excessive.

The applicant lodged a request for release with the Specialised Criminal Court on 13 November 2018. The court dismissed it on the same day and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s interlocutory appeal on 29 November 2018. The decision was served on 13 December 2018. On 25 January 2019 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint which the Constitutional Court dismissed on 24 April 2019 by decision no. I. ÚS 160/2019, served on the applicant ’ s lawyer on 20 May 2019. The Constitutional Court found that the length of the judicial review of detention had been fully in line with the Court ’ s jurisprudence.

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

In their observations of 22 June 2020, the Government relied on the Constitutional Court ’ s decisions delivered in the applicant ’ s case, arguing that his complaints were manifestly ill-founded. In respect of the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court itself, the Government sought to distinguish the present case from other cases in which the Court had found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in particular Žúbor v. Slovakia (no. 7711/06, § 90, 6 December 2011), where the review before the Constitutional Court had lasted more than eight months. They underlined that in that case the Court had accepted a lower standard of “speediness” in the proceedings before the court of appeal and, by analogy, also in respect of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, which were separate from proceedings before ordinary courts ( Žúbor , cited above, § 89).

In addition, they argued that had the applicant been successful in his request for release, he would have been released immediately without having to wait for a written decision and its delivery; therefore the additional time period during which the impugned decisions had been drawn up and served could not have caused him any harm in the present circumstances.

Lastly, with regards to application no. 17086/19, the Government reiterated the Constitutional Court ’ s findings concerning the latter ’ s lack of competence to consider the period during which the applicant ’ s request for release had been pending before the prosecutor because he had not raised any arguments in that regard in his constitutional complaint.

The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, the period under consideration for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention begins with the lodging of the application with the domestic authorities and, in the absence of a public pronouncement of the decision, ends on the day the decision is communicated to the applicant or to his representative (see, mutatis mutandis , Koendjbiharie v. the Netherlands , 25 October 1990, Series A no. 185-B, § 28; Singh v. the Czech Republic , no. 60538/00, § 74, 25 January 2005; and Cabala v. Slovakia , no. 8607/02, § 68, 6 September 2007). The Court also refers to its previous judgment relied on by the Government, according to which the standard of “speediness” – which is less stringent when it comes to proceedings before the court of appeal – is relevant also in respect of complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about constitutional proceedings (see Žúbor , cited above, § 89).

Noting that in his first request for release (application no. 17086/19) the applicant had not complained before the Constitutional Court about the prosecutor ’ s conduct, the Court considers that the period to be examined started on 3 April 2018 and ended on 8 October 2018 (see, mutatis mutandis , Schram v. Slovakia [Committee], no. 8555/17, § 18, 23 October 2018). The ordinary courts at two levels had dealt with the applicant ’ s request for release for the total duration of thirty-four days (the decision of the Supreme Court having been served on 7 May 2018) and the Constitutional Court had examined his constitutional complaint for three months and seventeen days (the final decision having been served on 8 October 2018).

With regards to the applicant ’ s second request for release (application no. 58230/19) the Court observes that its judicial review lasted thirty days before two levels of ordinary courts (the decision of the Supreme Court having been served on 13 December 2018), and an additional three months and twenty-three days before the Constitutional Court.

Thus, the total duration of the review before two levels of ordinary courts was thirty-four and thirty days, respectively; the Constitutional Court dealt with the applicant ’ s constitutional complaints for less than four months. Regard being had to the Court ’ s case-law on the subject (see, by contrast, Å tetiar and Å utek v. Slovakia , nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, § 129, 23 November 2010; Gál v. Slovakia , no. 45426/06 , § 63, 30 November 2010; Michalko v. Slovakia , no. 35377/05, § 168, 21 December 2010; Osváthová v. Slovakia , no. 15684/05, § 73, 21 December 2010, in which the period of examination of a detention matter by a court of just one judicial instance lasted between thirty-six and ninety days ), the Court concludes that the length of the judicial review of detention in the present case was not excessive, especially in view of the fact that the standard of “speediness” is less stringent in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, and that during those proceedings nothing prevented the applicant from lodging a fresh request for release (see, mutatis mutandis , Žúbor , cited above, §§ 88 ‑ 89).

Accordingly, the complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 15 April 2021 .

Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay Acting Deputy Registrar Presiden t