5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently serving a life sentence in Ilava prison. 6.  By way of a series of judgments in 2000, 2001 and 2002, the applicant was acquitted of kidnapping and murder and found guilty of extortion, tax fraud and customs fraud, for which he was sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment (see Černák v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67431/01, 1 March 2005). 7.  He served this sentence until November 2002, when he was released on parole. On an unspecified later date, he left Slovakia for the Czech Republic. 8.  In 2003 a warrant was issued in Slovakia for his arrest for the purpose of returning him to prison to carry out the remainder of his sentence imposed in 2000, 2001 and 2002 (see paragraph 6 above); he was arrested in the Czech Republic on that warrant and extradited to Slovakia upon a decision of the Minister of Justice of the Czech Republic of 18 September 2003. 9.  He then served the remainder of his previously imposed sentence until it ended on 26 October 2006. 10.  Prior to that date, however, he had been remanded in custody pending trial on new charges, which led to a new trial and conviction. The details are summarised below. 11.  On 22 December 2005, 15 February, 4 April and 25 October 2006, and 21 February 2007 respectively, the applicant was charged with seven counts of murder and conspiracy to murder, which were all alleged to have taken place before his extradition to Slovakia in 2003 (see paragraph 8 above). 12.  The proceedings on all these charges were joined on 26 February 2007, but the proceedings in respect of one of the counts of murder were eventually separated on 10 June 2007.
(b)  Initial pre-trial detention 13.  Meanwhile, on 24 October 2006 the Banská Bystrica District Court (Okresný súd) had remanded the applicant in custody pending trial on the charge of 15 February 2006. The detention was to commence as soon as he completed his sentence (see paragraph 9 above).
Following an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť) by the applicant, the detention order was upheld by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 15 November 2006. 14.  The applicant was detained until 1 February 2007 when he was released by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court, pursuant to its decision of the same day to uphold a release order previously issued by the Banská Bystrica District Court on 21 December 2006. 15.  In ordering his release, the courts held that the charge of 15 February 2006 was in breach of the rule of speciality under Article 14 of the ECE with respect to his extradition in 2003, as was his detention on that charge.
The courts also held that, consequently, the charge against him and any procedural action performed in the framework of the proceedings against him on that charge were legally flawed.
Nevertheless, it was not justified to terminate his prosecution on that charge because nothing prevented its continuation subject to additional consent being given by the Czech Republic.
(c)  Consent by the Czech Republic to the applicant’s prosecution in Slovakia 16.  Meanwhile, on 22 December 2006 the Prešov District Court in Slovakia had issued a European arrest warrant (“EAW”) in respect of the applicant on the basis of the charge of 25 October 2006. 17.  On 19 and 26 January 2007 respectively, two courts in the Czech Republic, the Prague City Court (Městský soud) and, following an appeal by the applicant, the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud), gave their consent for applicant’s trial to take place in Slovakia pursuant to the EAW of 22 December 2006. In the proceedings before the Czech courts, the applicant was not present in person, but he was represented by a lawyer. 18.  On 31 January 2007 another lawyer appointed by the applicant presented herself without invitation at the Prešov District Court, seeking a copy of the EAW of 22 December 2006, and was provided with it. 19.  On 2 March 2007 the Prešov District Court issued another EAW in respect of the applicant and the remaining murder charges, that is to say those of 22 December 2005, 15 February and 4 April 2006 and 21 February 2007 (see paragraph 11 above). 20.  On 19 April and 2 May 2007 respectively, the Prague City Court and, following an appeal by the applicant, the Prague High Court, gave their consent for his trial to take place in Slovakia pursuant to the EAW of 2 March 2007. 21.  Meanwhile, immediately on his release on 1 February 2007 (see paragraph 14 above), the applicant was taken back into custody on the charge of 25 October 2006. 22.  According to a note in the case file of the Prešov District Court (the remand court), from 7.30 a.m. on 2 February 2007 a clerk of that court, on the instruction of a judge, had been trying to contact the applicant’s two defence counsel, whose chambers were some 350 and 200 kilometres away from the seat of the court, with a view to summoning them for a habeas corpus hearing to be held at 1 p.m. that day.
One of the counsel was reached by phone at 8.40 a.m. and said that in view of the distance and weather conditions, he would be unable to attend the hearing in time. He would collect the other counsel on his way. Written summons were sent to both lawyers by fax at around 9.00 a.m. 23.  The habeas corpus hearing started at 1 p.m. as scheduled. The applicant complained several times that he felt unwell. Emergency medical services were called twice, and on one of those occasion he was taken to hospital and checked over, with the conclusion that he was fit to appear in court. 24.  On his return from hospital at around 2.45 p.m., the hearing resumed in the presence of his counsel, who had arrived in the meantime. 25.  The counsel were provided with a copy of the PPS’s application for the EAW of 22 December 2006 (see paragraph 16 above). In addition, the hearing was adjourned for twenty minutes so they could inspect the case file and, subsequently, before it resumed again at 3.40 p.m., consult with the applicant. 26.  The applicant denied the charge. His counsel invoked the rule of speciality with respect to his extradition from the Czech Republic in 2003 and objected that the applicant had never been heard in the extradition proceedings as to whether or not he wished to rely on the rule. 27.  The PPS aimed at having the applicant remanded in custody on three different grounds, namely that he might abscond, interfere with the course of justice and reoffend. 28.  At 5.10 p.m. the hearing was concluded by the District Court, which remanded the applicant in custody on the ground that he might abscond. The transcript of the hearing indicated, without giving any details, that the detention order was “pronounced together with the reasoning [behind it] and instructions as to an available remedy”. 29.  At the conclusion of the hearing the applicant, his counsel and the PPS indicated orally that they wished to appeal. 30.  In the written version of the detention order of 2 February 2007, the District Court observed that there was a strong suspicion against the applicant, that the offence he was suspected of was one of the gravest, and that he was potentially facing a heavy penalty. There was consequently the risk that in order to avoid punishment, he would leave Slovakia, just as he had done after his conditional release.
The District Court also observed that the EAW of 22 December 2006 did not envisage detaining him on the other grounds pursued by the PPS. Accordingly, the relevant part of the PPS’s request called for no separate decision. 31.  The PPS subsequently provided the grounds of their appeal in writing, reiterating their request that the applicant also be detained on the grounds that he might interfere with the course of justice and reoffend. 32.  The defence, on their part, waited for a written version of the detention order of 2 February 2007 to be served on them so that they could contest it properly. 33.  On 7 February 2007 the applicant offered a written pledge that, if left at liberty, he would live in accordance with the law and make himself available for the purposes of his prosecution. It was received at the District Court on 15 February 2007. 34.  Meanwhile, however, on 12 February 2007 the Prešov Regional Court had dismissed the appeal by the defence in a private session (neverejné zasadnutie) without hearing the applicant or his counsel.
The decision was taken prior to the service of the detention order on the defence and, therefore, in the absence of their grounds for appeal. 35.  In the same decision, the Regional Court allowed the PPS’s appeal inasmuch as they were seeking an extension of the applicant’s detention on the grounds that he might reoffend. The court referred, inter alia, to his previous conviction for violent offences and the further charges of 22 December 2005 and 4 April 2006. 36.  The written version of the detention order of 2 February 2007 was eventually served on the defence on 12 February 2007, after the Regional Court had dismissed their appeal as mentioned above. 37.  On 6 July 2007 the PPS requested that the applicant’s detention be extended by six months until 1 February 2008. They argued that the investigation had been extensive and demanding and that there remained a number of investigative steps to be taken. Moreover, additional time was necessary for the applicant and his co-accused to familiarise themselves with the contents of the case file before an indictment could be filed. 38.  A copy of the PPS’s request was served on the applicant on 9 July 2007. 39.  The following day, 10 July 2007, the Prešov District Court held a private session in which it allowed the PPS’s request without hearing the applicant.
The decision relied on the EAWs of 22 December 2005 and 2 March 2007 and the ensuing consent by the Czech Republic. The court found that the grounds for detaining the applicant persisted, as established at the time of his remand in custody, and observed that the joinder of all the charges against him on 26 February 2007 had given rise to a complex trial to which adequate time should be afforded. The decision was served on the applicant on 16 July 2007. 40.  On 18 July 2007, the applicant made a written submission containing an interlocutory appeal against the decision of 10 July 2007. It was sent by post and received by the District Court on 20 July 2007. In his appeal, he referred to the rule of speciality and argued that his detention was warranted and unlawful. 41.  By another submission dated 23 July 2007, the applicant requested that he be heard in person. That submission was also sent by post and appears to have been received by the Prešov Regional Court on 26 July 2007. 42.  However, meanwhile, on 25 July 2007 the Regional Court had dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal. It observed, among other things, that the PPS’s request for an extension of his detention had been served on him on 9 July 2007, that the defence had made no written submission in respect of it, that his interlocutory appeal did not contain any information calling for a public hearing, and that he had not expressly requested to be questioned orally.
As to the substance, the Regional Court concurred with the District Court and observed that all statutory conditions for extending the term of the applicant’s detention had been met. 43.  On 5 April 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) under Article 127 of the Constitution, alleging a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention. 44.  He argued, in particular, that the renewal of his detention was linked to charges for offences that were alleged to have taken place prior to his extradition from the Czech Republic in 2003, that the Czech Republic had not at the relevant time effectively consented to his prosecution on those charges, and that, consequently, there had been a breach of the rule of speciality under Article 14 of the ECE. 45.  He also contested that the subsequent EAWs had been issued and the ensuing extradition procedure had been carried out in secret, without his knowledge, and without any opportunity for him to comment. 46.  Furthermore, he contended that he had not been served with a copy of the detention order of 2 February 2007 or the PPS’s interlocutory appeal against it in sufficient time for him to be able to consider and contest them (see paragraphs 31 and 36 above). 47.  On 2 August 2007 he amended his constitutional complaint, alleging a violation of his rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. He claimed that the decision to extend his renewed detention had been taken without him being present or heard, and that it lacked adequate reasoning. 48.  On 29 November 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It established, inter alia, that (i) the renewal of the applicant’s detention had been prompted by an application by the PPS; (ii) a copy of this application had not been served on the defence; (iii) the detention order of 2 February 2007 had been served on the applicant’s counsel on 12 February 2007, the same day his interlocutory appeal against that detention order had been dismissed; (iv) neither the application for the EAWs nor for the applicant’s extradition from the Czech Republic had been communicated to the defence; (v) there was no legal requirement to serve an application for an EAW, detention order, or foreign consent to prosecution on the person concerned; (vi) neither was there any time-limit for serving a copy of the PPS’s reasoning on that person; (vii) the applicant and his three counsels had been heard by a judge on 2 February 2007; and (viii) the defence had been given the opportunity and had exercised their right to inspect the contents of the case file. 49.  The Constitutional Court concluded that the ordinary courts had examined the case properly and had given adequate reasoning in their decisions, free from constitutionally relevant arbitrariness. No position was taken as to the rule of speciality. 50.  The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 24 January 2008. 51.  On 13 February 2008 the applicant had been indicted to stand trial on the remaining six counts of murder and conspiracy to murder. 52.  Prior to and following that date a number of decisions were taken extending his term of pre-trial detention and confirming it. In challenging these decisions, the applicant relied, inter alia, on the rule of speciality as mentioned above. In particular, on 18 December 2008, the applicant put forward this argument in a fresh complaint to the Constitutional Court. 53.  On 14 October 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible, observing that the applicant had or must have already known of the unlawfulness alleged in that complaint when he had lodged his previous constitutional complaint, on 5 April 2007, which had been declared inadmissible on 29 November 2007.
However, the complaint under the Constitutional Court’s examination had not been lodged until 18 December 2008, after the expiry of the statutory two-month time-limit. It was therefore belated.
Lastly, observing that the applicant’s trial was ongoing, the Constitutional Court held that it was still open to him to assert his rights before the ordinary courts.
The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 9 November 2009. 54.  On 10 November 2009 the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction, but his appeal was dismissed on 22 September 2010. He also lodged a constitutional complaint, but it was declared inadmissible on 3 May 2011. 55.  As to the applicant’s contentions in respect of the speciality rule, the Constitutional Court found, inter alia, that his prosecution in Slovakia after his extradition from the Czech Republic in 2003 for offences that had taken place before the extradition had been allowed by virtue of additional consent being given by the Czech Republic. 56.  In so far as any procedural measures had been taken prior to this additional consent being given, the Constitutional Court found that they had all subsequently been repeated, a factual finding contested by the applicant. Nevertheless, it concluded that any such procedural measures had thereby become lawful. 57.  The Constitutional Court also found that, in the circumstances of the present case, the use of an EAW with a view to obtaining the additional consent of the Czech Republic for the applicants’ prosecution in Slovakia was not contrary to the object and purpose of the applicable rules, despite the applicant being detained in Slovakia at that time. 58.  Moreover, the Constitutional Court found that, as the Czech Republic had subsequently consented to the applicant’s prosecution in Slovakia, there was no need to deal with his objection that he had not been heard in the extradition proceedings.
In sum, it held that there had been no breach of the speciality rule under Article 14 of the ECE.