5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Bratislava. 6.  On 5 February 2010 the applicant was accused of fraud. The alleged crime was considered particularly serious. 7.  On 24 and 31 August 2010 the applicant examined the case file in the presence of his lawyer and accepted that plea bargaining negotiations should be started. 8.  On 20 September 2010 a plea bargain agreement (dohoda o vine a treste) was concluded in the presence of the injured parties, which contained an admission of guilt by the applicant and details of the sentence to be imposed on him. It was submitted to the Nitra District Court for approval. 9.  At a hearing held on 20 October 2010 the applicant replied in the negative to questions put to him by the judge in respect of the above‑mentioned agreement. The court therefore refused to accept it and returned the case at its preliminary stage. Its decision was delivered to Nitra prison, where the applicant was being detained, on 8 November 2010. 10.  On 3 November 2011 the Prosecutor General’s Office dismissed a request by the applicant for certain public prosecutors to be excluded from the Nitra Regional Prosecutor’s Office. 11.  On 21 January 2011 the public prosecutor gave detailed instructions to the police as to what further investigations were to be carried out into the case. 12.  On 8 February 2010 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody with effect from 5 February 2010. His detention was considered necessary for the reasons set out in Article 71 § 1 (a) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely that there was a risk of him absconding and committing further offences. 13.  On 10 April 2010 the applicant filed a request for release with the Regional Prosecutor’s Office. It was transferred to the District Court on 28 April 2010, but dismissed on 20 May 2010. The applicant filed a complaint the same day. 14.  The District Court transferred the file to the Nitra Regional Court on 6 August 2010, which dismissed the applicant’s complaint on 18 August 2010. It returned the file to the District Court the following day. On 8 September 2010 the District Court dispatched the Regional Court’s decision, which was deemed served on the applicant on 16 September and his counsel on 23 September 2010. 15.  In the meantime, on 4 August 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 November 2010. 16.  On 25 October 2010 it dismissed the applicant’s second request for release, which he had filed on 19 August 2010 with the Regional Prosecutor’s Office. On 19 November 2010 the Regional Court dismissed his complaint against that decision, which had been lodged on 25 October 2010. Its decision was served on him on 26 November 2010. 17.  On 20 January 2011 the applicant again petitioned the Regional Prosecutor’s Office for release. He argued that there were no relevant grounds for his continued detention. On 28 January 2011 the public prosecutor transferred his request to the District Court, which, after hearing him, dismissed it on 9 February 2011. 18.  The District Court noted that the applicant had admitted his actions in preliminary proceedings. As he was suspected of committing the offence using a false identity, there was still a specific risk that he might abscond if released and thus hamper the further investigations into the case which had been ordered. The fact that he had a family and a permanent residence could not outweigh this consideration. Furthermore, the offence was punishable by a prison term of ten to fifteen years, and had been committed within a period of probation following an earlier conviction. The District Court found his continued detention justified for the purposes of Articles 71 §§ 1 (a) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19.  At the hearing the applicant orally lodged a complaint and requested that the court dealing with it hear him in person. He submitted the reasons for his complaint in writing on 23 and 25 February 2011. 20.  The applicant argued, in particular, that he had no reason to abscond. Prior to his detention he had lived with his partner, who had given birth to their child in the meantime. He had an income, as he was a partner in a limited liability company which was in operation. The argument that he had used a false identity was unsubstantiated and the fear he would continue committing offences unjustified. He requested that his complaint be examined at a public hearing, as he wished to point to specific facts and the reasons he had mentioned in his application for release. He further argued that the District Court judge had refused, on the grounds that he knew their content, to examine decisions he had wished to submit when being heard on 9 February 2011. 21.  On 3 March 2011 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint after having examined it in camera. It confirmed the reasons the District Court had considered his continued detention necessary. Its decision stated, in particular, that there was still a risk of him absconding, as he had used a false identity to commit the offence and was under the threat of severe punishment. At the same time, his continued detention was justified by the fear he would continue the criminal activities for which he was prosecuted. The Regional Court considered his arguments about the unlawfulness of his continued detention irrelevant. His family and social situation could not affect the position in view of the nature of the offence, given that it had been committed within a period of probation following an earlier conviction, and he had previously been convicted of criminal offences committed deliberately. The decision stated that no facts had been established, for the purposes of Article 302 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to justify hearing him in person. 22.  On 12 May 2011 the District Court dismissed a fresh application by the applicant for release and extended his detention until 21 July 2011. On 17 May 2011 the Regional Court dismissed his complaint against that decision. 23.  He was released from detention on 5 September 2011. 24.  In a complaint lodged on 27 September 2010, the applicant alleged a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in that the ordinary courts had not decided his request for release of 10 April 2010 speedily. 25.  On 7 October 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible to the extent that it concerned delays in the proceedings before the District Court. It noted that the Regional Court had only actually dealt with the case for thirteen days. There was therefore no appearance of a breach of Article 5 § 4 in respect of the proceedings before it. 26.  In a judgment of 20 December 2010 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the proceedings before the District Court. The judgment stated that it had kept the file from 28 April to 6 August 2010, that is, for more than fourteen weeks. Another twenty days had lapsed before it sent the Regional Court’s decision to the applicant. There was no justification for such a long time being spent on the applicant’s request for release. 27.  The Constitutional Court awarded 1,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to reimburse his costs. 28.  On 29 March 2011 the applicant complained that the Regional Court had breached his rights under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention in the proceedings leading to its decision of 3 March 2011. 29.  Firstly, he alleged that there had been no relevant reason for his further detention. In particular, reference to the offence of which he was suspected and the severity of its punishment did not in itself justify the deprivation of his liberty. He argued that he had not resisted arrest and had cooperated with the investigator; similarly, he had not tried to avoid the earlier criminal proceedings in which he had been given a conditional prison sentence. Furthermore, his partner, whom he had planned to marry, had given birth to a child in the meantime. Their daughter had serious health problems. No specific reasons had been put forward to justify the conclusion that there was a risk of him absconding or avoiding the pending criminal proceedings.
The applicant considered the argument that further investigations had to be carried out irrelevant, and concluded that the ordinary courts had not indicated any specific fact-based grounds for his continued detention.
Secondly, he complained that, despite an explicit request, the Regional Court had not heard him.
Lastly, he alleged that he had been detained without any relevant legal grounds from 5 to 8 November 2010. 30.  On 14 June 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 related to the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 5 to 8 November 2010 admissible. 31.  On the same day it rejected the remaining complaints as manifestly ill-founded for the following reasons. Since the Regional Court had also referred to and accepted the reasons for the District Court’s justification of the applicant’s detention, the relative scarceness of the reasons for its decision did not amount to a breach of his rights under Article 5 of the Convention. Since the District Court had heard him prior to deciding his request for release, neither the domestic law nor Article 5 § 4 required, in the circumstances, that the Regional Court also hear him in person when deciding his complaint. In particular, in his complaint he had not relied upon any new facts or arguments in respect of his request for release. 32.  In its judgment on the merits of 13 September 2011 the Constitutional Court concluded that there had been a breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, in that the applicant had been detained unlawfully during the period 5 to 8 November 2010 and the Regional Court had failed to duly address that issue. The decision acknowledged that following the applicant’s refusal to confirm the plea bargain agreement before a judge and the return of the proceedings at the preliminary stage, a new seven-month detention period had started running in accordance with the relevant law. However, the earlier decision to extend his detention had expired on 5 November 2010, and the District Court’s decision of 20 October 2010 had not been sent to Nitra prison, where the applicant was being held, until 8 November 2010. During that time the applicant had therefore been detained without a decision justifying the continued deprivation of his liberty. 33.  The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for just satisfaction. It did not consider it necessary to order his release, as at the time of its decision his detention was covered by a decision of the ordinary court concerned. The Regional Court was ordered to reimburse his costs.