Communicated on 7 December 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 55844/12 Miroslav ŠTVRTECKÝ against Slovakia lodged on 21 August 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Miroslav Štvrtecký , is a Slovak national who was born in 1968 and lives in Senica . He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Toman , a lawyer practising in Bratislava.

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

1. Detention of the applicant during the criminal investigation

3. On 3 October 2006 the applicant and three other people were charged with extortion.

4. On 6 October 2006 the Senica District Court remanded the applicant in custody from 3 October 2006 onwards. The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence and that, given the nature of this offence, there was a risk that he could influence witnesses, contact other perpetrators and tamper with evidence. T he Trnava Regional Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .

5. On 6 December 2006 the police investigator charged the applicant and fifteen other people with establishing, masterminding and supporting a criminal group. The applicant was also charged with aggravated coercion, extortion, and causing bodily harm.

6. On 17 January 2007 the Pezinok Special Court dismissed an application by the applicant for release. It relied on the particularly serious and organised nature of the offences he was charged with, and held that there was a real danger that he might influence witnesses and contact other perpetrators in order to tamper with evidence.

7. On 16 March 2007 the same court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 3 October 2007. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, it relied on the allegations that he was a leader of the criminal group. The court pointed to the relevant criminal investigation, which was particularly complex, involving sixteen accused and a large number of witnesses and victims.

8. On 17 April 2007 the police investigator charged the applicant with another count of extortion.

9. On 11 June 2007 the Special Court dismissed an application by the applicant for release. It relied on the testimonies of several witnesses who were afraid to testify against him. The court took the complexity of the criminal investigation into account, finding that there had been no undue delays.

10. On 14 September 2007 the applicant was charged with two other counts of extortion.

11. On 18 September 2007 the Special Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 3 April 2008 and also extended the grounds of his detention. It held that there was reason to suspect that, if released, he would continue his criminal activities. The court also relied on the additional charges brought against the applicant and the complexity of the criminal investigation.

12. On 17 March 2008 the applicant ’ s detention was extended until 7 July 2008.

2. Detention of the applicant during trial

13. The applicant was indicted before the Special Court on 13 June 2008. The bill of indictment concerned sixteen charges and eighteen accused. He was charged with establishing, masterminding and supporting a criminal group, aggravated coercion, causing bodily harm, and ten acts of extortion.

14. On 25 June 2008 the Special Court examined the grounds of the applicant ’ s detention and ruled that he should remain in detention. It pointed out that, according to the indictment, he was allegedly the leader of the criminal group, which had been conducting criminal activities for six years by means of extortion, aggravated coercion, and the threat and use of physical and psychological violence against people who were witnesses in the trial.

15. On 6 October 2008 the Special Court reviewed again the grounds of the applicant ’ s detention when conducting the preliminary examination of the bill of indictment, and ruled that he should remain in detention.

16. On 16 July 2009 the Special Court dismissed an application by the applicant for release.

17 . On 27 May 2010 the Special Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 13 December 2010. The court limited the grounds of his detention to the risk of reoffending, because the trial court had already heard all witnesses. On 10 June 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant.

18. On 23 June 2010 the applicant was convicted by the Special Court and sentenced to twenty-five years ’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant and the judgment became final on 11 February 2011.

3. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

19. On 10 August 2010 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 10 June 2010 to dismiss his interlocutory appeal (see paragraph 17 above). Among other things, he complained regarding the length of his detention.

20 . On 8 December 2011 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant ’ s rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, on account of there being insufficient reasoning in the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 10 June 2010. The Constitutional Court quashed that decision and awarded the applicant compensation in the sum of 4,500 euros (EUR). At the same time the Constitutional Court held that there was no need to adjudicate upon the rest of the complaints, and made no decision about the length of the detention.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He claims that the authorities did not proceed with special diligence and that there were unjustified delays in the criminal proceedings.

2. Invoking Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, the applicant further claims that he had no means of obtaining compensation for the alleged violations of his rights under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the applicant ’ s detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Were the grounds advanced by the domestic courts for the applicant ’ s continued detention “relevant and sufficient”?

2. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?