Published on 12 July 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 55788/20 and 3 other applications Dávid KRÁTKY against Slovakia and Dominik KRÁTKY against Slovakia lodged on 15 December 2020 , 28 January 2020 and 21 April 2021 respectively c ommunicated on 23 June 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The cases concern the alleged unlawfulness and length of the applicants ’ detention of approximately three and a half years, as well as the relevance and sufficiency of its grounds throughout that period. It also concerns certain procedural guarantees in the detention review proceedings initiated by the applicants ’ requests for release, including the length of such review.

Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, the applicants submit that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their continued detention, since they merely repeated the reasoning of their previous decisions. They complain further that the Constitutional Court failed to decide speedily on their constitutional complaints of 23 December 2019 (no. II. ÚS 381/2020) against the ordinary courts ’ refusal to release them from detention. In addition, the first applicant complains that the Supreme Court failed to take into account the written reasons for his appeal against the rejection of his application for release and thereby violated his procedural rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the applicants ’ detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the applicants ’ continued detention and did the competent authorities display special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicants (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016; Petrov v. Slovakia , no. 64195/10, § 55, 2 December 2014; and Kuc v. Slovakia , no. 37498/14 , §§ 50-60, 25 July 2017)?

2. Did the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court no. II. ÚS 381/2020, in which the applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Žúbor v. Slovakia , no. 7711/06, §§ 89-90, 6 December 2011)?

3. Was the procedure by which the first applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, were the proceedings adversarial and was the principle of equality of arms respected in the present case, namely in the light of the Supreme Court ’ s failure to address in its decision of 30 January 2020 the first applicant ’ s written reasons for the appeal submitted on 28 January 2020 (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, §§ 202 ‑ 204, ECHR 2009; ÄŒernák v. Slovakia , no. 36997/08, §§ 78-84, 17 December 2013; and Yegorov v. Slovakia , no. 27112/11, §§ 109-120, 2 June 2015)?

The parties are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents, namely, the judicial decisions concerning the applicants ’ continued detention.

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

55788/20

Krátky v. Slovakia

15/12/2020

Dávid KRÁTKY 1991 Leopoldov Slovak

Roman TOMAN

2.

8058/21

Krátky v. Slovakia

28/01/2020

Dominik KRÁTKY 1991 Banská Bystrica Slovak

Pavol KURIC

3.

21850/21

Krátky v. Slovakia

21/04/2021

Dominik KRÁTKY 1991 Banská Bystrica Slovak

Roman TOMAN

4.

22074/21

Krátky v. Slovakia

21/04/2021

Dávid KRÁTKY 1991 Leopoldov Slovak

Roman TOMAN