THIRD SECTION

Application no. 64528/09 Branislav SCHVARC against Slovakia lodged on 25 May 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Branislav Schvarc , is a Slovak national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Banská Bystrica .

The circumstances of the case

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

2. On 20, 21 and 22 May 2009, respectively, the applicant was arrested, charged and remanded in detention on the suspicion of unlawful production, possession and trading in drugs within the meaning of Article 172 § 1 (c) of the Criminal Code, in connection with a suspicion that, if left at liberty, he would continue offending.

3. On 22 July 2009 the applicant requested release, in support of which he offered a pledge that he would live in accordance with the law and that he would not interfere with the course of justice.

4. On 3 August 2009 the Zovlen District Prosecutor found no reasons for releasing the applicant and transmitted his request to the Zvolen District Court ( Okresný súd ) for a judicial determination with a proposal that it be dismissed.

5. On 19 August 2009 the District Court examined the request in the framework of a non ‑ public conference ( neverejné zasadnutie ), following which, on the same day, the request was dismissed. The District Court observed, inter alia , that by a judgement of 23 April 2009 the applicant had been convicted of theft.

6. Immediately after the decisions of 19 August 2009 had been pronounced, the applicant submitted orally an interlocutory appeal ( sťažnosť ), which he later amended with the assistance of his lawyer.

7. The written version of the District Court ’ s decision of 19 August 2009 was served on the applicant on 24 September 2009.

8. On 8 October 2009 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal fully endorsing the reasoning of the District Court and adding that, at the same time, the applicant was being prosecuted also for other drug-related offences.

9. On 16 October 2009 the written version of the Regional Court ’ s decision was transmitted to the District Court, upon which it became incumbent to ensure the service of that decision on the applicant.

The service was effected on 30 October 2009.

10. On 11 November 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ústavný súd ), directing it both against the District Court and the Regional Court .

Relying on Articles 127 of the Constitution and 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant challenged the length of the proceedings in his request for release and claimed 1,500 euros (EUR) by way of just satisfaction.

11. On 20 January 2010 the Constitutional Court appointed the applicant a legal-aid lawyer and, on 18 February 2010, it declared the complaint partly admissible, in so far as it concerned the District Court.

12. On 30 March 2010 the Constitutional Court issued a judgment ( nález ) finding a violation of the applicant ’ s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. At the same time, it awarded him EUR 500 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

The written version of the constitutional judgment was served on the applicant on 24 May 2010.

COMPLAINT

13. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the lawfulness of his detention has not been determined speedily and that the amount of just satisfaction awarded to him by the Constitutional Court in that respect has been inadequate.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In view of the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment of 30 March 2010 and, in particular, the just satisfaction awarded thereby, may the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, within the meaning of its Article 34?

2. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

In particular, did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?