Communicated on 2 April 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 15259/11 Miroslav MASLÁK against Slovakia lodged on 26 February 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Miroslav Masl ák , is a Slovak national, who was born in 1979 and habitually resides in Pru ž ina . He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Toman , a lawyer practising in Bratislava.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Applicant ’ s prosecution and detention

3 . The applicant is being prosecuted and has been detained pending trial on a number of charges mainly concerning alleged violent offences with organised crime background.

4 . The present complaint relates to the period of his detention following his arrest on 27 September 2008. At the relevant time, his detention was authorised until 27 September 2009.

5 . After the events complained of, which are described below, the applicant was released, on 1 April 2010. However, the criminal proceedings against him appear to be still pending.

2. Request for release

(a) Submissions constituting the request

6 . The applicant made three separate submissions to the Office of Special Prosecutions (“the OSP” - Úrad Špeciálnej prokuratúry ), the Office of the Prosecutor General (“the OPG” - Generálna prokurat úra ) and the Special Court ( Špeciálny súd ), in which he referred to a recent judgment of the Constitutional Court concerning the status of the Special Court, argued that his detention on the authority of the Special Court was unlawful, considered that his detention was in any event unwarranted, proposed that it be replaced by his pledge that he would live in accordance with the law, and requested release.

7 . All three requests fell by law to be examined at first instance by the OSP .

8 . The first request was addressed directly to the OSP, was dated 20 May 2009, and reached its addressee on 26 May 2009.

The second request was addressed to the OPG, was dated 21 May 2009, reached its addressee on 25 May 2009, and was transmitted to the OSP on 26 May 2009.

9 . As the OSP did not grant the first two requests, they fell by law to be judicially determined by the Special Court, to which they were transmitted on 2 June 2009.

10 . The third request was addressed to the Special Court, was also dated 21 May 2009, reached its addressee on 29 May 2009, and was transmitted to the OSP on 3 June 2009. As the OSP did not grant it, it transmitted it back on the same day to the Special Court for a judicial determination.

(b) Challenge to the first-instance judge for alleged bias

11 . By way of a submission dated 23 May 2009, which was received at the Special Court on 29 May 2009, the applicant expressed objections to the handling of his case by his first-instance judge, which the Special Court interpreted as a challenge to the judge for bias.

12 . On 2 June 2009 the challenge was dismissed. On 10 June 2009 the decision was served on the applicant and on 11 June 2009 he filed an interlocutory appeal, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 24 June 2009. The case-file returned to the Special Court on 1 July 2009.

(c) First-instance decision on the request for release

13 . On 1 July 2009 the Special Court ordered that the request be examined in the framework of a public session ( verejn é zasadnutie ), to be held on 13 July 2009:

14 . On 8 July 2009 the Special Court was informed that the applicant ’ s lawyer had been struck off the list of counsel and could accordingly no longer represent him. In response, the Special Court invited the applicant to appoint a new lawyer by 13 July 2009.

15 . As legal representation was mandatory, in the circumstances the session scheduled for 13 July 2009 had to be cancelled.

16 . On 13 July 2009 the applicant made a written submission containing his arguments and waiving his right to have the request examined at a public session.

17 . On 16 July 2009 the Special Court dismissed the applicant ’ s request. The written version of the decision was served on the applicant ’ s court ‑ appointed lawyer on 21 July 2009, on the lawyer of his choice on 27 July 2009, and on the applicant himself on 30 July 2009.

(d) Interlocutory appeal and challenge to the Supreme Court for alleged bias

18 . The applicant challenged the decision of 16 July 2009 by way of an interlocutory appeal lodged by his lawyer as well as by the applicant himself. The appeal of his lawyer is dated 23 July 2009, was addressed to the Special Court, reached its addressee on 27 July 2009, and was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 31 July 2009. The applicant ’ s own appeal is dated 2 August 2009, was addressed directly to Supreme Court, and was received there on 5 August 2009.

19 . Simultaneously with filing an appeal, the applicant challenged the entire criminal-law bench of the Supreme Court for bias, again relying on the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment mentioned above.

20 . On 13 August 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge.

21 . On 25 August 2009 it dismissed the applicant ’ s interlocutory appeal against the decision of 16 July 2009. The Supreme Court ’ s decision was served on the applicant on 2 September 2009.

(e) Final domestic decision

22 . On 4 November 2009 the applicant filed a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court. He directed the complaint against the Specialised Criminal Court, which by then was the legal successor to the Special Court. He also directed the complaint against the Supreme Court and against the OSP.

Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalents, he argued that his request for release had not been determined by an independent tribunal, that its dismissal was not supported by adequate reasoning, that the applicant had arbitrarily been denied his right to release pending trial, and that the request had not been determined “speedily”.

In terms of relief, the applicant requested that the decisions of 16 July and 25 August 2009 be quashed, that his release be ordered, and that he be awarded 21,000 euros worth of compensation for non-pecuniary damage as well as reimbursement of his legal costs.

23 . On 17 June 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible, essentially as being manifestly ill-founded.

24 . As to the complaint about the alleged lack of speedy determination of the applicant ’ s request, the Constitutional Court observed, in particular, that the time-delay in serving the Special Court ’ s decision of 16 July 2009 on his chosen lawyer and the applicant himself (see paragraph 17 above) was due to the facts that the lawyer of the applicant ’ s choice had only announced his appointment to the police, that this information had accordingly had to be transmitted to the court, which had taken some time, and that the prosecution service had failed to inform the court that, at the given time, the applicant had been transferred to a prison different from that known to the court, as a consequence of which the decision had been sent to a wrong address and had had to be resent.

Examining separately the parts of the proceedings having taken place before the Special Court and the Supreme Court and the involvement of the OSP, the Constitutional Court concluded that, in view of all the circumstances, there had been no delays attributable to the authorities reaching a constitutionally relevant threshold. From that perspective, the Constitution Court considered that any delays resulting from the applicant ’ s challenges of bias were imputable to him and that the relevance of the delays in the service of the Special Court ’ s decision of 16 July 2009 on the applicant (on 30 July 2009), which were due to the lack of coordination among the authorities concerned, had been reduced by the service of that decision on the lawyer of the applicant ’ s choice on 27 July 2009.

The written version of the Constitutional Court ’ s decision was served on the applicant on 26 August 2010.

COMPLAINT

25 . The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that, upon his request for release of May 2009, the lawfulness of his detention was not decided speedily.

26 . The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he has been denied an enforceable right to compensation in respect of the alleged violation of his above-mentioned right under Article 5 § 4.

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, upon his request for release of May 2009, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?