5.  The applicant’s identity has been the subject of controversy at the national level. In his submission to the Court he referred to himself as mentioned above (see paragraph 1), and indicated his year of birth as 1977. 6.  During the proceedings in Slovakia described below, the applicant also was or has been referred to as Jurij Rybakovas, with the surname at birth of Vilcinskas, alias Kolja, born in 1976, and as Valerij Juriovi Grinevsky, a Lithuanian national. 7.  On 31 December 2007 the applicant was arrested; on 4 January 2008 he was remanded in custody pending trial on charges of conspiracy and murder. 8.  On 18 June 2009 the Bratislava I District Court (Okresný súd) authorised extension of his pre-trial detention until 28 August 2009. Following an appeal by the applicant the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 25 June 2009 upheld that decision. 9.  On 11 August 2009 the applicant was indicted to stand trial; on 22 August 2009 the District Court dismissed his request for release. 10.  The District Court heard the case on 27-29 October 2010 and a further hearing was scheduled for 12 to 14 January 2011. 11.  On 27 July 2011 the applicant was acquitted; his acquittal was upheld on appeal on 18 April 2013. 12.  On 16 September 2010, while he was still in detention, and acting through the intermediary of his lawyer, the applicant requested release. In support of the request, he argued that he was innocent and that his detention in the present trial was no more than an arbitrary means of retaining him in detention in the interest of another trial.
The request was submitted by mail and was received at the District Court on 20 September 2010. 13.  On 12 January 2011 the District Court heard the applicant in private, when he confirmed that he was seeking a response to the request for release he had made in September 2010. On the same day the District Court dismissed the request and the applicant stated on the record that he wished to appeal. 14.  Through his lawyer, the applicant submitted his reasons for appealing in writing on 17 January 2011. At the same time, he offered a pledge that, if released, he would live in accordance with the law. 15.  On 25 January 2011, at a private session, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and rejected his offer. It observed, inter alia, that there had been unjustified delay in dealing with the applicant’s request at the first level of jurisdiction, which could potentially serve as a ground for calling the President of its Chamber to account, but which in itself did not constitute a reason for releasing the applicant. 16.  The written version of the decision of 25 January 2011 was served on the applicant via the District Court on 23 February 2011. It was not amenable to appeal. 17.  In March 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd).
He directed the complaint against the District Court and alleged that, in determining his request for release of September 2010, there had been a violation of his right under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to a “speedy” review of the lawfulness of his detention.
In terms of redress, he claimed reimbursement of his legal costs and 6,000 euros (EUR) by way of compensation. 18.  On 5 April the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible; on 21 June 2011 it found a violation of the applicant’s right as claimed.
Referring to its previous judgments in cases nos. III. ÚS 7/00, I. ÚS 18/03, III. ÚS 126/05 and III. ÚS 216/07, the Constitutional Court observed that the “speediness” requirement would usually not be deemed to have been respected if the length of the proceedings in question amounted to months, as opposed to weeks; if the proceedings lasted more than one month at a single level of jurisdiction; or if there had been a period of judicial inactivity amounting to weeks.
As regards the merits, the Constitutional Court found the District Court’s handling of the applicant’s request “particularly lengthy” and “extraordinarily and unacceptably long”. It could neither be justified nor explained by the fact that, at the hearing held on 27-29 October 2010 (see paragraph 10 above), the applicant had taken no action and had not demanded a decision on his request for release. 19.  As regards just satisfaction, it awarded the applicant reimbursement of his legal costs but rejected the remainder of his claim. In that regard, 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 loss suffered as a result of a violation of an individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms. It concluded that the finding of a violation of the applicant’s rights was sufficient just satisfaction for him. 20.  The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 23 September 2011.