5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Veličná. 6.  On 24 June 2003 the police arrested the applicant. He was accused of planning a robbery and remanded in custody on 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 preliminary proceedings until 24 January 2005. 8.  On 21 January 2005 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant and several others 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. On 27 July 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that his detention after 24 January 2005 was unlawful. 11.  In the meantime, on 15 June 2005, the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 June 2006. On 23 August 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as a result of that decision. 12.  On 31 March 2006 the applicant was released. 13.  In judgment III. ÚS 271/06 of 8 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found that by the above decision of 24 May 2005 the Supreme Court had breached the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court referred to its judgments I. ÚS 6/02 and I. ÚS 204/05 (see paragraphs 25-30 below) and held that there existed no justification for the absence of any judicial decision extending the applicant’s detention after 24 January 2005. 14.  The Constitutional Court ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs in the constitutional proceedings. It dismissed his claim for just satisfaction, holding that (i) the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 provided appropriate redress for the applicant and (ii) the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 was based on that court’s practice, which, however, was not in accordance with practice under the Convention. 15.  In a different judgment delivered on 6 June 2007 (IV. ÚS 10/07) the Constitutional Court found that by the above decision of 15 June 2005 the Supreme Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, with reference to the reasons for its judgment of 8 March 2007 the Constitutional Court was of the view that the Supreme Court should have remedied the situation resulting from the applicant’s unlawful detention by ordering his release. 16.  The Constitutional Court granted the equivalent of 1,470 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction and ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs.