THIRD SECTION

Application no. 64195/10 Peter PETROV against Slovakia lodged on 7 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Peter Petrov , is a Slovak national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Bratislava .

Circumstances of the case

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

1. Decisions on the applicant ’ s detention

On 5 February 2010 the applicant was accused of fraud. The alleged crime was considered as particularly serious.

On 8 February 2010 the Nitra District Court remanded the applicant in custody with effect from 5 February 2010.

On 10 April 2010 the applicant filed a first request for release to the Nitra Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office. The latter transmitted the request to the Nitra District Court on 28 April 2010. The District Court dismissed the request on 20 May 2010. The applicant filed a complaint on the same day.

The District Court transmitted the file to the Nitra Regional Court on 6 August 2010. The Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint on 18 August 2010. It returned the file to the District Court on 19 August 2010. On 8 September 2010 the Nitra District Court dispatched the Regional Court ’ s decision of 18 August 2010. It was served on the applicant on 16 September 2010 and on his counsel on 23 September 2010.

On 4 August 2010 the Nitra District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 5 November 2010. It did not hear the applicant prior to that.

On 25 October 2010 the Nitra District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s second request for release which he had filed on 19 August 2010. On 19 November 2010 the Nitra Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint against that decision which had been lodged on 25 October 2010. The Regional Court ’ s decision was served on the applicant on 26 November 2010.

On 20 January 2011 the applicant again lodged a request for release to the Nitra Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office. He argued that there existed no relevant grounds for his continued detention. On 28 January 2011 the public prosecutor transmitted the request to the Nitra District Court which, after having heard the applicant, dismissed it on 9 February 2011.

The District Court noted that the applicant had admitted the actions imputed to him in preliminary proceedings. As the applicant had acted in the context of the alleged offence under a different identity, the risk still existed that he might abscond in case of his release. Furthermore, the offence imputable to the applicant was punishable with a prison term from ten to fifteen years. The offence in issue had been committed within a period of probation following his earlier conviction and conditional release. The case had been returned to pre-trial stage after an agreement on the applicant ’ s guilt and punishment had not been approved. It was necessary to take further evidence.

The applicant filed a complaint on the same day. He requested that the court dealing with his complaint should hear him in person. The applicant submitted the reasons for his complaint in writing on 23 and 25 February 2011. He argued that he had no reason for absconding. Prior to his detention he had lived with his partner who had given birth to their child in the meantime. The fear that he would continue committing offences was unjustified. The applicant denied having acted under a different person ’ s identity.

On 3 March 2011 the Nitra Regional Court dismissed the complaint. It held that hearing the applicant in person was not necessary. The Regional Court subscribed to the reasons for which the District Court had considered the applicant ’ s continued detention necessary. The applicant ’ s reference to his family and social situation could not affect the position in view of the nature of the offence imputed to him, given that the alleged offence had been committed within the period of probation following his earlier conviction, and since he had been earlier convicted of criminal offences which he had committed deliberately.

2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

(a) Proceedings file no. IV. ÚS 374/2010

In his complaint lodged on 27 Septembe r 2010 the applicant alleged a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that the ordinary courts had not decided speedily on his request for release of 10 April 2010.

On 7 October 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible to the extent that it concerned the proceedings before the Nitra District Court. The Constitutional Court noted that the Regional Court had actually dealt with the case for thirteen days only. There was therefore no appearance of a breach of Article 5 § 4 in the proceedings before the Regional Court .

In a judgment of 20 December 2010 t he Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that the Nitra District Court had failed to speedily decide on the applicant ’ s request for release of 10 April 2010. The judgment stated that the District Court had held the file from 28 April 2010 to 6 August 2010, that is for more than fourteen weeks. Another twenty days had lapsed before the District Court sent the Regional Court ’ s decision to the applicant. There was no justification for such a long period of dealing with the applicant ’ s request for release.

The Constitutional Court awarded 1,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant ’ s costs.

(b) Proceedings file no. III. ÚS 265/2011

On 29 March 2011 the applicant complained that the Nitra Regional Court had breached his rights under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention in the proceedings leading to its decision of 3 March 2011. In particular, the applicant alleged that there had been no relevant reason for his further detention on remand and that he had been held in detention without any relevant legal ground from 5 to 8 November 2010. The applicant further complained that, despite his explicit request, the Nitra Regional Court had not heard him.

On 14 June 2011 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the complaint under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 related to the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant ’ s detention from 5 to 8 November 2010. It declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded the remaining complaints of the applicant for the following reasons. The Constitutional Court accepted as partially justified the complaint that the Regional Court had not addressed his arguments and had not given relevant and sufficient reasons for its decision. However, since the Regional Court had also referred to the reasons for which the Nitra District Court had considered his detention justified, the relative scarceness of reasons for its decision did not amount to a breach of the applicant ’ s rights under Article 5 of the Convention. Since the Nitra District Court had heard the applicant prior to its decision on his request for release, Article 5 § 4 did not require, in the circumstances, that the Regional Court should also hear him in person when deciding on his complaint.

In its judgment on the merits of 13 September 2011 the Constitutional Court concluded that there had been a breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in that the applicant had been detained without any legal ground in the period from 5 to 8 November 2010 and since the Regional Court had failed to duly address that issue.

The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s request for just satisfaction. It did not consider necessary to order the applicant ’ s release as at the time of its decision the applicant ’s detention was covered by a decision of the ordinary court concerned. The Regional Court was ordered to reimburse the applicant ’ s costs.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges that his rights under Article 5 §§ 1(c), 3 and 4 of the Convention were breached in the context of his detention. In particular, he complains that:

( i ) he was unlawfully detained between 5 and 8 November 2010;

(ii) the Nitra Regional Court failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons for its decision of 3 March 2011;

(iii) the domestic authorities failed to examine with due diligence his requests for release of 10 April 2010 and 19 August 2010; and

(iv) the Nitra District Court and the Nitra Regional Court failed to hear him prior to delivering their decisions of 4 August 2010 and 3 March 2011 respectively.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In view of the Constitutional Court ’ s judgments of 20 December 2010 and 13 September 2011 respectively, may th e applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, within the meaning of its Article 34, in respect of the facts covered by those judgments?

2. Has there been a breach of Arti cle 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

( i ) was the applicant ’ s detention from 5 to 8 November 2010 lawful; and

(ii) were the reasons for which the Nitra Regional Court , in its decision of 3 March 2011, considered the applicant ’ s continued detention necessary relevant and sufficient?

3. Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of:

( i ) the period during which the applicant ’ s request for release of 10 April 2010 was dealt with; and

(ii) the failure by the Nitra Regional Court to hear the applicant prior to delivering its decision of 3 March 2011?