Communicated on 7 June 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 8555/17 David SCHRAM against Slovakia lodged on 19 January 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr David Schram , is a Slovak national who was born in 1985 and lives in Bratislava. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Bardač , a lawyer practising in Bratislava.

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

On 20 December 2014 the Bratislava IV District Court ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention in the context of criminal proceedings in which he was prosecuted for committing the criminal offence of manslaughter. The reason for his detention was the risk of reoffending.

On 3 March 2015 the applicant submitted a request to the District Prosecution Office for release from pre-trial detention. The request was received by the latter on 4 March 2015. He asked for his detention to be replaced with supervision by a probation officer. His request was dismissed and transferred to the District Court.

On 26 March 2015 the District Court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant ’ s request to be released from pre-trial detention. The written version of that decision was served on the applicant on 14 April 2015 and, after several unsuccessful attempts at delivery, was served on the applicant ’ s lawyer on 21 April 2015.

The applicant ’ s lawyer lodged a written interlocutory appeal with the District Court within the statutory three-day period, namely on the evening of 24 April 2015. The case file was transferred to the appellate court on 29 April 2015 and the applicant ’ s appeal was dismissed in chambers on 7 May 2015. The written version of that decision was served on the applicant ’ s lawyer on 18 May 2015.

On 1 June 2015 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint, relying inter alia on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The applicant alleged that the prosecutor, the District Court and the appellate court had not proceeded speedily with his request for release from detention. The applicant also requested compensation of 2,000 euros (EUR) in addition to his legal costs and expenses. His complaint was declared admissible in part on 30 March 2016, namely in respect of the proceedings held before the District Court.

On 21 June 2016 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant ’ s right guaranteed under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. It did not award him any compensation or legal costs and expenses. The Constitutional Court scrutinised the District Court ’ s proceedings and concluded that they had lasted 44 days. The District Court had therefore failed to deal with the applicant ’ s request speedily and to serve the written decision on him promptly. It reproached the applicant ’ s lawyer for delays in formally receiving the District Court ’ s decision. With respect to the financial compensation, the Constitutional Court concluded that the finding of a violation of the applicant ’ s right was sufficient redress.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his request for release − before the public prosecutor, the District Court and the appellate court − lasted for two months and fifteen days and therefore did not meet the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

He also complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that he had no effective domestic remedy at his disposal in respect of his Article 5 § 5 claim.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention before the public prosecutor, the District Court and the appellate court between 4 March and 18 May 2015 , comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violation of Article 5 § 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 5 § 5, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?