5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Veľký Krtíš. At the time of the events complained of, the applicant was a Member of the National Council of the Slovak Republic (the Parliament). 6.  Prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings against a specific person in the present case, on 23 July 2003, a single judge of the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) issued a warrant authorising monitoring of the applicant’s telephone communications. The details are described at paragraph 37 below. 7.  On 6 August 2003 a long-time friend of the applicant, A., filed a criminal complaint against the applicant.
In the complaint, A. submitted (i) that his company had been successful in public procurement for construction works for a municipality and (ii) that he had subsequently been approached by the applicant with a request that he pay a percentage of the price of the contracted works to a person within the municipal administration so as to ensure that the contract could be concluded with final effect. 8.  Following the complaint of 6 August 2003, on the same day, a criminal investigation was commenced into suspected abuse of official powers and receipt of bribes (Articles 158 and 160(a) of the Criminal Code) by an unknown third person in connection with the events described above. 9.  On 7 August 2003 the Prosecutor General ruled that the investigation should be supervised by the Nitra Regional Prosecutor. 10.  On 25 November 2003 the applicant, A. and a third person met in the offices of a political party. After A. had left, the premises were raided and searched by the police. The applicant’s briefcase was retained and the equivalent of 12,000 euros (EUR) in cash was found inside. 11.  The applicant was detained as a suspect (for details see below) and, on 27 November 2003, he was charged with accepting bribes. 12.  On completion of the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, on 1 March 2004, the applicant consulted the case file. The consultation revealed that investigative measures had been ordered and applied in his case as mentioned at paragraph 6 above and described in detail at paragraphs 37 to 43 below. 13.  On 5 April 2004 the Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant to stand trial in the Banská Bystrica District Court (Okresný súd). 14.  On 9 May 2005 the applicant was convicted at first instance but the judgment was quashed on appeal on 23 February 2006. 15.  On 28 September 2009 the District Court acquitted the applicant and on 29 April 2010 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the public prosecution service. The acquittal thereby became final and binding (právoplatné). 16.  The courts concluded that it was not proven that the actions of which the applicant stood accused had taken place. 17.  After the police raid at 2.50 p.m. on 25 November 2003, the applicant was detained as a suspect. 18.  On 27 November 2003 the Regional Prosecutor requested that the applicant be remanded in custody pending trial on the charge referred to in paragraph 11 above. On the same day Parliament gave its consent to the applicant’s prosecution and detention. 19.  At 9.30 a.m. on 28 November 2003 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the Nitra District Court to be heard in connection with the prosecutor’s request. 20.  At 11 a.m. on 28 November 2003 the District Court judge remanded the applicant in custody pending trial.
Observing that the applicant and his co-accused were known regionally and nationally, and that further evidence had to be taken from four witnesses, the District Court found that it was necessary to detain the applicant under Article 67 § 1 (b) of the 1961 CCP to prevent him from colluding with his co-accused and from interfering with the course of justice. 21.  Immediately after being remanded in custody on 28 November 2003, the applicant orally lodged an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť). He submitted the grounds for his appeal in writing on 4 December 2003.
The applicant argued, inter alia, that the Nitra District Court, which had ordered his detention, could not be considered an independent tribunal established by law because its territorial jurisdiction had been unilaterally established by the Prosecutor General when determining which prosecutor was to supervise the investigation. According to the rules on territorial jurisdiction of courts in the pre-trial phase of proceedings, the courts in the judicial district of which the acting prosecutor had his or her seat had jurisdiction. Had it not been for the decision of the Prosecutor General, the investigation would have been supervised by the Banská Bystrica District Prosecutor and, consequently, the case would have fallen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Banská Bystrica District Court. 22.  The appeal was dismissed by the Nitra Regional Court on 11 December 2003 in private session (neverejné zasadnutie). As to the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in matters concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the Regional Court noted that it had followed the rules in Article 26 of the 1961 CCP. These rules provided unequivocally that jurisdiction in the pre-trial phase of the proceedings lay with the courts in the judicial district in which the acting prosecutor had his or her seat. Moreover, the prosecution service had had no influence on the assignment of the applicant’s case to a specific judge at the District Court and to a chamber at the Regional Court, both of which steps had occurred in full compliance with the applicable rules. 23.  The Regional Court considered that all the formal and substantive requirements for detaining the applicant pending trial had been met, and observed in particular that the applicant had been detained with a suitcase containing the equivalent of EUR 12,000 in cash and that fundamental differences between his version of events and that of some witnesses had to be clarified by means of a confrontation (konfrontácia). 24.  Under domestic law, the order for the applicant’s detention became final and binding on the day on which the Regional Court dismissed his appeal, namely on 11 December 2003. 25.  The decision of the Regional Court was served on the applicant and his lawyer on 21 and 27 January 2004 respectively. 26.  On 19 January 2004 the applicant requested release with or without bail and offered a pledge under Article 73 § 1 (b) of the 1961 CCP that, if released, he would live in accordance with the law. 27.  By law, the request fell to be determined first by the Regional Prosecutor, who dismissed it and, on 19 January 2004, transmitted it ex officio to the District Court for judicial determination. 28.  On 6 February 2004 the District Court dismissed the request. The District Court observed that the applicant was still facing prosecution on the charge mentioned above (see paragraph 11). The investigator had continuously been taking procedural steps but there were still a number of witnesses to be examined and a number of steps to be taken in respect of A. and of the persons charged. If the applicant was released, it was likely that he would seek to influence witnesses and his co-accused, which would frustrate examination of the case in a public hearing. The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 12 February 2004. 29.  On 16 February 2004 the applicant challenged the decision of 6 February 2004 by way of an interlocutory appeal. 30.  On 4 March 2004, in private session, the Regional Court granted the appeal and ordered the applicant’s immediate release.
The Regional Court acknowledged that there still was a well-founded suspicion against the applicant. However, in view of the progress of the investigation, there was no longer any tangible ground to fear that the applicant would interfere with the course of justice. On the same day the applicant was released. 31.  The decision of 4 March 2004 was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 9 March 2004. 32.  On 26 March and 18 May 2004 respectively the applicant lodged and amended a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd).
He argued that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and arbitrary, that it had had not been ordered by an independent tribunal established by law, that the decisions lacked adequate reasoning and that the proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention had lasted too long. 33.  On 9 March 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. 34.  So far as the applicant’s placement in remand was concerned, the Constitutional Court observed that the detention order against the applicant had become final and binding on 11 December 2003 and that the final decision had been served on the applicant on 21 January 2004. As the applicant had lodged his constitutional complaint on 26 March 2004, it failed to comply with the statutory two-month time-limit for bringing a constitutional complaint in respect of either of the above-mentioned dates. 35.  In so far as the proceedings and decisions on the applicant’s request for release were concerned, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant was no longer a victim of a violation of any of his substantive rights, in that his request had been granted and had resulted in the applicant’s release. The complaint about the length of the proceedings on the applicant’s request for release was found to be manifestly ill-founded. 36.  The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 14 April 2005. 37.  The warrant of 23 July 2003 (see paragraph 6 above) was issued under section 4 of the Protection of Privacy from Unauthorised Use of Technical Means of Secret Surveillance Act (Law no. 166/2003 Coll. - “the Privacy Protection Act”). It was issued at the request of the criminal police and valid for a period until 23 October 2003. 38.  On 21 August 2003 a single judge of the Nitra Regional Court issued a warrant for A. to be involved in the investigation as an agent under Article 88(b) §§ 1 and 5 of the 1961 CCP.
The warrant was issued at the request of the Nitra Regional Prosecutor. It was initially valid until 21 November 2003 but was on that day extended until 14 February 2004. 39.  On 20 September 2003 a single judge of the Nitra Regional Court issued a warrant under Article 88(e) §§ 1, 2 and 4 of the 1961 CCP authorising covert audio and video recordings of A.’s meetings with the suspects.
The warrant was valid for a period until 21 November 2003 but was extended on 20 November 2003 until 14 February 2004. It was issued at the request of the Nitra Regional Prosecutor. 40.  On 13 November 2003 a single judge of the Nitra Regional Court issued a warrant under Article 88 §§ 1 and 2 of the 1961 CCP for monitoring of the applicant’s telephone communications.
The warrant was valid for a period from 14 November 2003 until 14 February 2004. It was issued at the request of the Nitra Regional Prosecutor. 41.  The warrants of 23 July and 13 November 2003 were executed by tapping the applicant’s mobile phone. Transcripts of the calls were included in the case file. 42.  The warrants of 21 August and 21 November 2003 were executed in that A. acted as an agent and subsequently testified in court as a witness. 43.  The warrants of 20 September and 20 November 2003 were executed in that meetings between the applicant and A. on 21 and 25 November 2004 were audio and video recorded. 44.  Audio recordings that were a part of the case file were played in court at a hearing on 27 January 2005, from which the public was excluded. 45.  On 3 May 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court, contesting these investigative measures and their legislative framework. He argued in particular that the Privacy Protection Act did not define adequately the target persons and offences and did not contain sufficient safeguards against abuse. He raised similar arguments in respect of the measures under the 1961 CCP. In addition, the applicant argued that the judges who had authorised those measures could not be considered a tribunal established by law as their territorial jurisdiction had been set up by a unilateral action of the public prosecution service. Lastly, the applicant submitted that nothing was known to him to justify such measures. 46.  On 16 March 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It observed that the impugned measures had been carried out on the authority of the ordinary courts and that it was for them, as courts with full jurisdiction, and not for the Constitutional Court, to review the legality of these measures and of the evidence obtained thereby (if any).
The decision was served on the applicant on 4 May 2005.