5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Štúrovo. 6.  On 5 February 2004 the police arrested the applicant. He was accused of planning a robbery[1] and remanded in custody from that date. 7.  Several decisions extending the applicant’s detention were made. In particular, on 18 November 2004 the Žilina District Court extended his detention in the context of the pre-trial proceedings until 24 January 2005. 8.  On 21 January 2005 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant and several other persons before the Žilina Regional Court. 9.  The applicant requested to be released, arguing that the Regional Court had not extended his detention after the expiry of the period indicated in the District Court’s decision of 18 November 2004. 10.  On 20 April 2005 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s release. Upon a complaint lodged by the public prosecutor the Supreme Court decided on 24 May 2005 that the applicant should remain remanded in custody. 11.  On 2 June 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release. On 15 June 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed a complaint by the applicant against that decision. 12.  On 22 July 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that his detention in the period after 24 January 2005 and the Supreme Court’s above decision of 24 May 2005 were both unlawful. In a separate complaint lodged on 31 August 2005 the applicant complained about the refusal to release him in the proceedings leading to the Supreme Court’s decision of 15 June 2005. 13.  On 5 February 2006 the applicant was released. 14.  On 10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 had been violated as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005. There had been no judicial decision extending his detention after 24 January 2005, and there existed no justification for that situation. 15.  The Constitutional Court quashed the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 in so far as it concerned the applicant and ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs in the constitutional proceedings. It dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction with reference to a conclusion which a different chamber of the Constitutional court had reached in the case of one of the applicant’s co-accused. According to that conclusion, (i) the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 provided appropriate redress to the plaintiff and (ii) the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 was based on that court’s earlier practice, which, however, was not in accordance with practice under the Convention. 16.  In a judgment of 30 November 2006 the Constitutional Court found that by its decision of 15 June 2005 the Supreme Court had breached the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, the Supreme Court should have remedied the situation resulting from the applicant’s unlawful detention from 25 January 2005 by ordering his release. 17.  The judgment stated, in particular:
“In the Constitutional Court’s view, the jurisdiction of the court involved at the pre-trial stage ended with the filing of the indictment on 21 January 2005. The indictment as such is not a ground for continued detention of a person, as it does not explicitly follow from the law, and it is inadmissible to extend the possibilities of restricting a person’s liberty by extensive interpretation of several provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, a court’s decision on detention of a person given at the pre-trial stage can constitute a ground for such person’s detention for a short period following the indictment. Otherwise it would be practically impossible to ensure continued detention of a person after an indictment has been filed. In the circumstances, a ground for the applicant’s detention existed until 25 January 2005. The detention should have been extended by a decision given no later than 25 January 2005 if it was to continue after that date. In the absence of any such decision, the restriction of the applicant’s liberty after 25 January 2005 was unlawful.
The unlawfulness of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty after 25 January 2005 cannot be justified retrospectively, not even by a judicial decision. Subsequent judicial decisions could not have extended the applicant’s detention, as it had ended on 25 January 2005. The only existing possibility was to remand the applicant in custody again. As this was not done, his subsequent deprivation of liberty had no legal ground.” 18.  The Constitutional Court quashed the Supreme Court’s decision of 15 June 2005, granted the equivalent of 2,818 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction and ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs.