THIRD SECTION

Application no. 78129/11 Nikolaj Å ABLIJ against Slovakia lodged on 18 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant ’ s identity has been subject to a controversy at the national level. In his submission, his name is Nikolaj Šablij , he is a Ukrainian national and he was born in 1977.

2. During the proceedings in Slovakia described below, the applicant has also been referred to as Jurij Rybakovas , with surname at birth Vilcinskas , alias Kolja , born in 1976, and as Valerij Juriovi Grinevsky , a Lithuanian national.

3. The applicant is detained in Slovakia. Before the Court, he is represented Mr K. Hynek , a lawyer practising in Bratislava (Slovakia).

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Arrest, detention and trial

5. On 31 December 2007 and 4 January 2008, respectively, the applicant was arrested and remanded in detention pending trial on charges of conspiracy and murder.

6. On 18 and 25 June 2009, respectively, the Bratislava I District Court and, following the applicant ’ s appeal, the Bratislava Regional Court authorised extension of his pre-trial detention until 28 August 2009.

7. On 11 and 22 August 2009, respectively, the applicant was indicted to stand trial on the above charges and the District Court dismissed his request for release.

8. The District Court heard the case between 27 and 29 October 2010 and a further hearing was scheduled for 12 to 14 January 2011.

9. Further course, the current state and the outcome (if any) of the applicant ’ s trial is unknown.

2. Request for release of September 2010

10. On 16 September 2010, through the intermediary of his lawyer, the applicant requested release arguing that he was innocent and that his detention in the present trial was no more than an arbitrary tool for retaining him in detention for the purposes of another trial.

The request was submitted by mail and it was received at the District Court on 20 September 2010.

11. On 12 January 2011 the District Court heard the applicant in the framework of a private session, at which the applicant confirmed that he wished to have his request of release of September 2010 determined. Subsequently, on the dame day, the District Court dismissed the request and the applicant submitted orally an interlocutory appeal. Through the intermediary of his lawyer, the applicant submitted his reasons for appealing in writing on 17 January 2011. At the same time, the applicant offered a pledge that, if released, he would live in accordance with the law.

12. On 25 January 2011, at a private session, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and rejected his offer. It observed, inter alia , that there had been unjustified delay in dealing with the applicant ’ s request at the first instance, which could potentially serve as a ground for calling the President of its Chamber to account, but which as such was no reason for releasing the applicant.

13. The written version of the decision of 25 January 2011 was served on the applicant via the District Court on 23 February 2011. No appeal lay against it.

3. Final domestic decision

14. 10 March 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court. He directed the complaint against the District Court; alleged that, in determining his request for release of September 2010 there had been a violation of his right under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to a “speedy” review of the lawfulness of his detention; and claimed 6,000 euros in compensation.

15. On 5 April and 21 June 2011, respectively, the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and found a violation of the applicant ’ s right as claimed. Referring to its previous judgments in cases nos. III. ÚS 7/00, I. ÚS 18/03, III. ÚS 126/05 and III. ÚS 216/07, the Constitutional Court observed that the “speediness” requirement would usually not be respected if the length of the proceedings in question amounted to months, as opposed to weeks; if the proceedings lasted more than one month at a single instance; or if there was a period of judicial inactivity amounting to weeks.

As regards the merits, the Constitutional Court found the District Court ’ s way of handling the applicant ’ s request “particularly lengthy” and “extraordinarily and unacceptably long”. It could neither be justified nor explained by the fact that, at the haring between 27 and 29 October 2010, the applicant had shown no activity by demanding that his request for release be determined.

Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim for just satisfaction, referring to “the principle of fairness”, “the particular circumstances of the case”, and a premise that monetary compensation was only to mitigate the loss suffered as a result of a violation of an individual ’ s fundamental rights and freedoms.

16. The Constitutional Court ’ s decision was served on the applicant on 23 September 2011.

COMPLAINTS

17. Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the length of the proceedings in his request for release of September 2010 was incompatible with the “speediness” requirement; and that, unlike in comparable cases involving nationals, he as a non-national has arbitrarily been denied any financial compensation in that respect.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the procedure on the applicant ’ s request for release of September 2010 in conformity with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

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

In particular, but not only, were the conclusions of the Constitutional Court as regards the applicant ’ s claim for just satisfaction compatible with the spirit of Article 5 of the Convention (see Martikán v. Slovakia ( dec. ), no. 21056/08, § 48, 9 October 2012, with further references)