5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Sontheim an der Brenz (Germany). 6.  On 25 November 2003 the applicant was charged in Slovakia with blackmail within the meaning of Article 235 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 140/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time). 7.  The charge was based on the suspicion that the applicant had sent a number of text messages from a German mobile telephone number to A. in Slovakia which contained serious threats that he would harm and kill her and their child. 8.  On 10 March 2004 the applicant was handed over to the Slovakian authorities to be prosecuted in Slovakia. He was subsequently detained in Slovakia pending trial there (see below). 9.  On 22 November 2004 the Levice District Court (Okresný súd) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment, suspended for thirty months. The applicant waived his right of appeal and, on the same day, the judgment became final and binding and the applicant was released. 10.  In so far as can be established from the applicant's submissions and the content of the documents in the case file, on 11 March 2004 a single judge of the District Court gave an order (uznesenie) for the applicant to be detained pending trial. The order was upheld following an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť) by the applicant examined by the Nitra Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 20 May 2004. The decision on the appeal was served on the applicant's lawyer on 5 August 2004. 11.  On 5 October 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) under Article 127 of the Constitution.
The applicant relied on Article 5 of the Convention and contended that his detention was unlawful and arbitrary since there was neither any “reasonable suspicion” with a basis in admissible evidence against him nor sufficient reasons to detain him. The applicant also argued that the impugned decisions lacked adequate reasoning and that the proceedings on his interlocutory appeal had not been speedy. He sought, inter alia, that the decision of 20 May 2004 be quashed, that he be released and that the Regional Court be ordered to determine his interlocutory appeal anew. 12.  On 22 June 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible. 13.  In a written submission of 31 August 2005 the applicant, inter alia, requested for comment a copy of any observations that the District Court and the Regional Court, as the defendants in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, might have submitted in reply to his complaint. 14.  On 15 February 2006 the Constitutional Court gave a judgment (nález) in which it found that the Regional Court had violated the applicant's rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that it had failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision of 20 May 2004 and in that the proceedings on the applicant's interlocutory appeal had not been speedy. 15.  The Constitutional Court quashed the decision of 20 May 2004. It observed that the applicant had meanwhile been released. The part of his constitutional complaint, which was aimed at his release and at a fresh examination of his interlocutory appeal, had therefore become moot. Nevertheless, while accepting that the applicant had sustained non-pecuniary damage, the Constitutional Court did not award him any just satisfaction on the ground that the finding of a violation of the applicant's rights was sufficient redress for him. However, the Constitutional Court allowed a part of the applicant's claim for legal costs 16.  The Constitutional Court took into account observations made in reply to the applicant's complaint by the District Court and the Regional Court but made no mention of the part of the applicant's complaint which concerned the substantive aspects of his detention. 17.  The judgment of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant through the intermediary of his lawyer on 6 July 2006. No appeal lay against it. 18.  In so far as can be established from the applicant's submissions and the content of the documents in the case file, on 17 May 2004 the applicant requested release, offered a pledge, under Article 73 § 1 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 141/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time) (“the CCP”), that he would live in accordance with the law and, as an alternative, applied for bail under Article 73a of the CCP. 19.  By law the request fell to be determined first by the regional prosecutor, who dismissed it and on 3 June 2004 forwarded it ex officio to the District Court for judicial determination. 20.  The request for release was then dismissed in turn by a three-judge bench of the District Court on 26 July 2004 and, on an interlocutory appeal by the applicant, by the Regional Court on 28 October 2004. The decision on the appeal was served on the applicant on 20 December 2004. 21.  The applicant challenged the decisions and various aspects of the procedure by way of two complaints under Article 127 of the Constitution. 22.  On 10 January 2006 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the complaint by which the applicant had mainly challenged the length of the proceedings in respect of his request for release, in so far as these proceedings had taken place before the public prosecution service and the District Court.
The Constitutional Court found that any possible delays on the part of the public prosecution service had been insignificant and that, in so far as the District Court was concerned, the complaint was manifestly ill-founded on the ground that, at the time of its introduction with the Constitutional Court, the request for release was no longer pending before the District Court, which was why the applicant was no longer in need of protection by the Constitutional Court.
The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 21 April 2006. 23.  On 23 August 2006 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded a part of the applicant's outstanding constitutional complaint, which concerned the fact that the decision of 26 July 2004 had wrongfully been made by a bench whereas the body authorised to make it was a single judge. The Constitutional Court declared admissible the remainder of the complaint, as specified below. The decision was served on the applicant on 30 October 2006. 24.  In a judgment of 21 June 2007 the Constitutional Court found that there had been a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention, in that the Regional Court had failed to provide the applicant with a copy of the observations made by the prosecution service in reply to the applicant's request for release, combined with the fact that it had also failed to hear the applicant in person, rule on all claims in the appeal and provide adequate reasoning for its decision. Moreover, the proceedings before both the District Court and the Regional Court had not been “speedy”. In reaching this last conclusion the Constitutional Court observed that, prior to the ordinary court's involvement in deciding on the applicant's request for release, his request had been examined by the public prosecution service. The Constitutional Court found no issue in the length of the proceedings before the public prosecution service. 25.  The Constitutional Court held that there was no point in quashing the decision of the Regional Court in view of the fact that the applicant had meanwhile been released. 26.  The applicant was awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) in just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and the reimbursement of legal costs.
The judgment was served on the applicant's lawyer on 17 August 2007.