Communicated on 14 January 2020

Published on 3 February 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 16231/17 Å tefan BUCHA against Slovakia lodged on 20 February 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the inactivity of the tribunal which is called to decide on the costs incurred by the applicant appointed as an ex officio defence counsel in criminal proceedings. After the criminal proceedings ended, the applicant submitted, on 23 December 2011, a calculation of his counsel ’ s fees and disbursements. Four years later, he filed a constitutional complaint alleging that the court had not yet issued a decision regarding those fees. On 28 June 2016, t he Constitutional Court (III. ÚS 441/2016) declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to lodge a complaint to the president of the court concerned, under section 62 of the Courts Act. In October 2019, the applicant ’ s request for compensation of his fees remained undecided.

Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that although the Code of Criminal Procedure sets a time-limit of 30 days for a decision about the lawyer ’ s fees, no decision has yet been adopted in his case. Moreover, the Constitutional Court required him to use a remedy which the Court did not consider effective in its judgment Ištván and Ištvánová v. Slovakia (no. 30189/07, 12 June 2012).

Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant asserts that, by the above decision, the Constitutional Court breached his right to an effective remedy.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In particular, has there been a dispute over the applicant ’ s right to compensation of his fees (see, mutatis mutandis , Alaverdyan v. Armenia (( dec. ) no. 4523/04, 24 August 2010, § 34)?

If so, was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Ištván and Ištvánová v. Slovakia , no. 30189/07, §§ 108-113, 12 June 2012)?