Communicated on 31 January 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 65504/14 Eleonór a MOJSEJOVÁ against Slovakia lodged on 22 September 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Eleonór a Mojsejová , is a Slovak national who was born in 1958 and lives in Košice . She is represented before the Court by Ms D. Holováčová , a lawyer practising in Košice .

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

On 4 June 2013 the applicant was charged for her part in a continuous criminal tax and insurance offence (failure to pay and evasion). Further charges for other tax offences were brought against her later.

On 3 September 2013 she was arrested. The following day she was brought before a pre-trial judge to decide whether to detain her in the context of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings.

On 6 September 2016 the pre ‑ trial judge detained the applicant on suspicion that, if left at liberty, she would interfere with the course of justice. She challenged that decision on 9 September 2013 unsuccessfully.

She then applied twice for release from detention. The present application concerns her second request for release dated 4 November 2013, which was lodged with the public prosecutor on 6 November 2013. The following day she supplemented that request by further arguments.

The public prosecutor refused her request. He relied on the allegations of several witnesses and other persons charged with the criminal tax offence claiming that she had pressured or intimidated them.

On 22 November 2013 the applicant ’ s request was considered by the pre ‑ trial judge who, unlike the prosecutor, ordered her release, accepted a written undertaking from her and placed her under supervised probation. The prosecutor disagreed and lodged a written interlocutory appeal on 29 November 2013.

On 17 December 2013 the appellate court, sitting in a private session ( neverejné zasadnutie ), quashed the pre-trial judge ’ s decision and dismissed the applicant ’ s request for release, as well as the written undertaking. It also set aside the above-mentioned supervised probation order. The appellate court did not accept her argument that there were no specific facts indicating that she had influenced witnesses or anyone else. It instead referred to the case file and the prosecutor ’ s submission, which suggested otherwise. The decision was served on the applicant on 30 December 2013.

The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint relying, inter alia , on Article 5 of the Convention (and its Constitution equivalent). She alleged, among other things, that the prosecutor, the pre-trial court and the appellate court had not proceeded speedily with her request for release from detention. Her complaint in respect of the two above-mentioned arguments was declared admissible on 5 February 2014.

On 4 June 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the admissible part of her complaint on the merits. Firstly, it noted that the proceedings concerning her request for release from detention had been held at two levels of jurisdiction and had lasted six weeks (until 17 November 2013) which, in view of all the circumstances of the case did not amount to a contravention of the Constitution. Secondly, it found the appellate court ’ s decision well ‑ reasoned.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the proceedings in respect of her request for release held before the public prosecutor, the pre-trial judge and the appellate court between 4 November and 30 December 2013 did not meet the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of her pre-trial detention, comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?