Communicated on 18 November 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 4698/13 Volodymyr YEGOROV against Slovakia lodged on 9 January 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Yegorov , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Krivoj Rog (Ukraine). He is represented before the Court by Kubicová , Benkóczki , Baláž-advokáti , s.r.o ., a law firm with its registered office in Bratislava (Slovakia).

The circumstances of the case

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

3. From 25 June 2002 until 19 September 2013 the applicant was continuously deprived of his liberty in Slovakia, mainly in the context of detention pending trial in relation to various charges pursued against him, partly in parallel proceedings and partly in consecutive proceedings. For more details, see Yegorov v. Slovakia (no. 27112/11, §§ 8 et seq ., 2 June 2015).

4. The present case relates specifically to the applicant ’ s detention under a remand order of the Specialised Criminal Court ( Špecializovaný trestný súd – “the SCC”) of 29 July 2011, from which the SCC ordered his release on 22 December 2011.

5. On 16 January 2012 the Supreme Court quashed the release order of 22 December 2011, following an interlocutory appeal by the Public Prosecution Service. As a result, the applicant ’ s detention continued.

6. The applicant challenged the Supre me Court’s decision by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution. In particular, he argued that the total duration of his pre-trial detention in Slovakia had greatly exceeded the maximum duration permitted by statute. In that regard, he alleged a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, claimed 100,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and asked the Constitutional Court to quash the decision of 16 January 2012.

7. On 13 June and 22 August 2012 respectively the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and decide d it on its merits by finding a violation of the applicant ’ s above-mentioned rights. In addition, it awarded the applicant compensation in respect of his legal costs, but dismissed the rest of his claims.

8. In terms of reasoning, the Constitutional Court referred to its previous ruling in an unrelated case, case no. II. ÚS 55/08, and the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 22 February 2012 based on that ruling, by which the Supreme Court had ordered the applicant ’ s release (see Yegorov , cited above, § § 35 ‑ 8).

In particular, the Constitutional Court noted the Supreme Court ’ s findings in its decision of 22 February 2012 that there had been irregularities in relation to the applicant ’ s detention in the context of the various sets of proceedings against him, and that, as a result, the cumulative length of his detention had significantly exceeded the statutory maximum duration in relation to both the pre-trial phase of the proceedings and the proceedings as a whole. The Supreme Court had failed to appreciate this in the contested decision of 16 January 2012, and had thereby violated the applicant ’ s fundamental rights.

9. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court reiterated its case-law to the effect that the purpose of making an award in respect of just satisfaction was to complete the protection of the fundamental right violated in instances where it had been established that the violation had occurred in such a way as to call for a level of protection higher than the mere finding of a violation or, as the case may be, an order by the Constitutional Court that a case be examined without violating the fundamental right in question.

10. Taking into account that the applicant had already been released by the above ‑ mentioned order of 22 February 2012, the Constitutional Court found that ( i ) it was “neither expedient nor appropriate” to award him any just satisfaction, and (ii) it was “not necessary for it to exercise its power to quash the contested decision in order to achieve rectification of the matter”.

11. The Constitutional Court ’ s judgment was not amenable to appeal.

COMPLAINT

12. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court denied him the enforceable right to compensation for his detention by dismissing his claim for just satisfaction, which, as the Constitutional Court has itself recognised, was in contravention of the provisions of Article 5.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?

In view of the Constitutional Court ’ s rulings in relation to the applicant ’ s claims for just satisfaction and for the quashing of the decision of 16 January 2012, can he be said to have such a right under the State Liability Act?