THIRD SECTION

Application no. 73368/11 Jozef RABAJ against Slovakia lodged on 8 November 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Jozef Rabaj , is a Slovak national, who was born in 1976 and habitually resides in Dolná Krupá .

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Request for release and pledge of lawful conduct

3. On 18 May 2010 the applicant requested release from detention on remand in the context of his trial on a charge of fraud. At the same time, he offered a pledge that, if released, he would live in accordance with the law.

4. On the same day, that is to say on 18 May 2010, the Trnava District Court dismissed the request and rejected the applicant ’ s offer and the applicant introduced an interlocutory appeal.

5. The appeal fell to be determined by the Trnava Regional Court, to which the District Court transmitted it together with the case-file on 23 June 2010.

6. On 29 June 2010 the Regional Court dismissed the appeal and, on 2 July 2010, it transmitted the written version of its decision together with the case-file to the Distract Court with a view to the latter ’ s ensuring the service of that decision on the parties.

7. On 30 July 2010 the decision of 29 June 2010 was served on the applicant. No appeal lay against it and it became final and binding.

2. Constitutional complaint

8. Meanwhile, on 22 July 2010, the applicant had lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court. He directed the complaint against the Regional Court and contended that the length of the proceedings on his interlocutory appeal of 18 May 2010 had been incompatible with the “speediness” and “reasonable time” requirements of Articles 5 § 4 and 6 § 1 of the Convention.

In addition, the applicant sought 3,500 euros in damages.

9. On 3 May 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible in so far as it concerned the applicant ’ s rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and inadmissible as for the remainder.

10. In a judgment of 13 September 2011 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant ’ s right to a “speedy” review of the lawfulness of his detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention but dismissed his claim for damages.

11. As regards the merits, the Constitutional Court observed, inter alia , that the Regional Court had committed an error of procedure in having its decision served on the parties via the District Court because, under the applicable procedural rules, it had been its own task and responsibility.

12. As to the claim for damages, the Constitutional Court referred 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 individual ’ s fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Constitutional Court further took into account the nature of the violation found, which lay in no more than a “postponement of the protection due under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention”, and concluded that the finding of a violation of the applicants ’ rights under that provision was a sufficient redress for him.

13. The Constitutional Court ’ s decision was served on the applicant on 2 November 2011.

COMPLAINTS

14. Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the length of the proceedings in his request for release of 18 May 2010 was incompatible with the “speediness” requirement and that he has not received any financial compensation in that respect.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the procedure on the applicant ’ s request for release 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)?