6.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Bratislava. 7.  On 28 April and 8 and 16 September 2005 the applicant was charged with attempted murder, robbery and fraud respectively. 8.  On 15 December 2005 the applicant was indicted to stand trial in the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) on those charges. 9.  On 26 January 2006 the Regional Court remitted the case to the Public Prosecution Service (“the PPS”) for the taking of further evidence, in particular in respect of the mental health of the key witness. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) on 27 April 2006, following an interlocutory appeal by the PPS. 10.  On 27 September 2006 the applicant was again indicted to stand trial on the charges mentioned above. 11.  On 30 October 2006 the Bratislava District Court (Okresný súd) held a meeting with a view to making an initial assessment of the indictment (predbežné prejednanie obžaloby). At the conclusion of the meeting, the District Court ordered a hearing of the indictment (hlavné pojednávanie) for 6 December 2006. 12.  In the course of the trial the applicant’s initial charges were re‑qualified and, on 18 May 2007, the District Court found him guilty of a number of offences, including oppression, unlawful restriction of liberty and robbery, and sentenced him to nine years in prison. The judgment was, however, quashed on appeal and the case was remitted to the District Court for re‑examination. The Court has not been informed of any further developments in the case, or of its outcome. 13.  On 29 April 2005 the applicant was arrested and on 2 May 2005 he was remanded in detention pending trial on the murder charge. He was detained under Article 67 §§ 1 (c) and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) (Law no. 141/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time) as he was facing a charge carrying a penalty of imprisonment for eight years or more and there was a risk that he would continue offending. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť) against the remand decision, which was declared inadmissible as belated on 16 June 2005. 14.  The applicant’s first request for release was dismissed by the District Court on 22 September 2005 and, following his interlocutory appeal, by the Regional Court on 18 October 2005. The decisions were taken in private (neverejné zasadnutie). 15.  Meanwhile, on 12 October 2005 the PPS had requested judicial authorisation for an extension of the applicant’s detention until 29 April 2006. The request was acceded to by the District Court on 17 October and, following an interlocutory appeal by the applicant, by the Regional Court on 8 November 2005. The decisions were taken in private. 16.  On 26 January 2006, when the applicant’s case was remitted to the PPS for the taking of further evidence (see paragraph 9 above), the Regional Court also ruled that the applicant should remain in detention. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 27 April 2006 following an interlocutory appeal by the applicant. The decisions were taken in private. 17.  On or around 2 or 4 October 2006, the applicant again requested release. The request was dismissed by the District Court on 16 October 2006 and, following an interlocutory appeal by the applicant, by the Regional Court on 23 November 2006. The decisions were taken in private. 18.  On 2 November 2006 the applicant lodged an application arguing that, at the preparatory meeting on 30 October 2006 (see paragraph 11 above), the District Court had failed to make a ruling concerning his continued detention. 19.  On 6 November 2006 the relevant Chamber of the District Court ruled that the applicant’s detention should continue; this was confirmed by a ruling on 27 November 2006 by which the President of the Chamber corrected what was termed a clerical error in the decision of 6 November 2006. The decisions were taken in private. 20.  On 24 January 2007 the Regional Court dismissed interlocutory appeals by the applicant against both the decision of 6 November and that of 27 November 2006. The decisions were taken in private.
The Regional Court accepted the applicant’s objection that mistakes had occurred on the part of the District Court in that it had failed to rule on his detention during the meeting of 30 October 2006 and in that it had made the ruling of 6 November 2006 with reference to the wrong provisions of the CCP.
However, those errors were merely technical in nature, had been remedied, and had resulted in no prejudice to the applicant.
At the same time, the Regional Court rejected a request by the applicant for release in return for a pledge under Article 80 § 1 (b) of the CCP that he would live in accordance with the law. 21.  On 30 July 2007 the applicant challenged the above-mentioned decisions in the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) by way of a complaint (sťažnosť) under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended).
On 27 September 2007 the complaint was declared inadmissible as having been lodged outside the statutory two-month time-limit. 22.  On 11 January 2007 the applicant filed a third request for release, which was received at the District Court on 16 January 2007, and which he amended on 26 June 2007. 23.  In its later observations in reply to the applicant’s constitutional complaint (see paragraphs 26 et seq. below), the District Court submitted as follows:
“... no decision had been taken in respect of [the request for release], which was explained by the ... judge as being because he had considered [the request for release] to be a supplement to the [applicant’s] interlocutory appeal against the decision of 6 November 2006” [see paragraph 19 above]. 24.  In the absence of any decision, on 21 August 2007 the applicant requested that his submissions of 11 January and 26 June 2007 be responded to. The request was lodged with the Regional Court, which transmitted it to the District Court, where it was received on 5 September 2007. 25.  On 24 September 2007 the District Court held a public session (verejné zasadnutie) at which it ordered the applicant’s immediate release, finding that his detention was no longer justified. The written version of the order refers to the applicant’s “request for release”, the release to be “based on the Regional Court’s decision [to quash the convicting judgment]” (see paragraph 12 above), without any further specification.
The order was implemented immediately. 26.  The applicant lodged a new complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution. No copy of it has been submitted to the Court. However, from the summary of the complaint in the Constitutional Court’s judgment (nález) (see below), the following can be established. 27.  The complaint was received at the Constitutional Court on 22 August 2007. It was assessed to be a separate complaint from the complaint of 30 July 2007 (see paragraph 21 above). Upon an invitation by the Constitutional Court, the applicant’s lawyer provided further and better particulars on 4 December 2007. 28.  The applicant challenged the District Court’s handling of his request for release of 11 January 2007, alleging a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, as well as the constitutional counterpart of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 29.  The applicant claimed the equivalent of approximately 6,600 euros (EUR) in compensation, citing “a particularly arbitrary and grave violation of [his] rights”. 30.  On 13 December 2007 the complaint was declared admissible. 31.  In its observations in reply to the complaint, which were filed with the Constitutional Court on 26 May 2008, the District Court made the submission cited above (see paragraph 23). 32.  On 17 June 2008 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. It observed, inter alia, that it was clear from the title and content of the applicant’s submission of 11 January 2007 that it was a request for release and not a supplement to his interlocutory appeal against the decision of 6 November 2006. It had been the responsibility of the District Court to deal with it accordingly, with priority and adequate expeditiousness, which it had failed to do. 33.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of approximately EUR 660, and the reimbursement of his legal costs, by way of just satisfaction. The amount of just satisfaction was determined “on an equitable basis” and with reference to Article 41 of the Convention, the “character of the violation found”, the “length of the District Court’s inactivity”, and the fact that the applicant had been released in the meantime. 34.  In so far as the applicant had invoked Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Constitutional Court observed that the case concerned matters of procedure falling within the ambit of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, and not the former provision, taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Similarly, as no determination of the merits of the case was involved, the constitutional equivalent of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable.