5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bratislava. 6.  On 22 March 2004 the Bratislava regional police headquarters commenced a criminal investigation into a suspicious claim for a contractual fine, the mortgage taken out on real property to secure that claim, the expert evaluation of the property and the attempt to sell the property via public auction. 7.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant and three other individuals were charged with conspiracy and attempted fraud in connection with the transaction referred to above. The applicant for his part was suspected of having organised the public auction. The charges against him fell within the category of serious offences specified in Article 62 § 1 of the 1961 Criminal Code (Law no. 140/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time – “the CC”) (see paragraph 71 in “Relevant domestic law” below).
The document setting out the charges refers, inter alia, to a statement by the alleged victim, documentary evidence and the results of a search of non‑residential premises.
The applicant and the other suspects denied the charges and challenged the decision by way of an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť). 8.  On 31 March 2004 the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor’s Office (Krajská prokuratúra) dismissed the interlocutory appeal and upheld the charges. The decision contains a detailed factual description of the charges. A general reference was made to the materials in the investigation file and the evidence previously obtained. 9.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. 10.  On 29 March 2004 at 12.40 p.m. the police detained the applicant as a suspect (zadržaný ako podozrivý) immediately before the public auction mentioned above was due to commence. 11.  On 30 March 2004 at 10.10 p.m. the regional prosecutor lodged a request with the Bratislava I District Court (Okresný súd) for the applicant and the other suspects to be placed in detention pending trial. 12.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the District Court in order to be examined in connection with the prosecutor’s request. 13.  The minutes of the hearing indicate that it commenced at 1 p.m. The applicant denied any wrongdoing and submitted that he had no intention of evading trial or interfering with the administration of justice. He had no knowledge of any other criminal charges against him.
In response to a question put by the regional prosecutor, the applicant acknowledged that the previous day he had been handed a document containing a charge against him for bribery.
At the conclusion of the hearing the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial and the applicant submitted an oral interlocutory appeal. 14.  A written version of the detention order of 31 March 2004 was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 6 April 2004.
In a two-page document, of which no more than half a page dealt with questions of substance, the District Court observed that the accused, including the applicant, were being prosecuted for extremely serious offences and that the applicant was facing tax evasion charges in Košice.
It could therefore be said that the accused had a manifest inclination to commit property offences, which gave rise to fears that the persons concerned, including the applicant, would continue their criminal activities within the meaning of Article 67 § 1 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 141/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time – “the CCP”). 15.  On 19 April 2004 the applicant submitted the grounds of his appeal, which ran to eighteen pages. He relied on Article 5 of the Convention, explained in detail the private-law aspects of the impugned transaction and argued that there was no criminal case to answer.
The applicant further submitted that he had no knowledge of any tax evasion charges against him and that the assertion of the prosecution service to that effect had not been substantiated and should therefore not be taken into account, in accordance with the principle of adversarial proceedings.
The applicant added that on 16 April 2004 he had returned his licence to organise public auctions. There was therefore no risk that he would continue criminal activities and he should be released.
In the alternative, the applicant offered a detailed pledge under Article 73 § 1 (b) of the CCP that he would live in accordance with the law, would not interfere with the course of justice and would make himself available for the purposes of his prosecution. 16.  On 6 May 2004, in a private session (neverejné zasadnutie), the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal against his detention. In a decision the written version of which ran to less than five pages and concerned all four accused, the Regional Court referred to the “evidence previously obtained” and quoted entire passages from the request of the regional prosecutor of 30 March 2004 for the applicant and the other suspects to be placed in detention pending trial. As the regional prosecutor had submitted, the applicant was facing tax evasion charges in Košice and this assertion had not been rebutted. Moreover, as the applicant himself admitted when questioned on 31 March 2004, he had also been charged with bribery and the document setting out the charge had been served on him in person.
“Having examined the materials in the case file”, the Regional Court “concluded” that all the formal requirements had been met for placing the applicant and the other suspects in detention pending trial. It was not up to a court but to the prosecution service at that stage of the proceedings to examine whether there was a sufficient basis for the charges. The regional prosecutor had reviewed and upheld the charges. The Regional Court held specifically that the principle of adversarial proceedings had been invoked out of context by the applicant in the pre-trial proceedings and that it only applied to the trial on the merits.
The Regional Court also observed that the applicant’s pledge under Article 73 § 1 (b) of the CCP was not sufficient at that stage of the proceedings owing to the nature of the case, which took priority over the applicant’s exclusion from the application of that provision under paragraph 3 of Article 73 (see paragraph 71 in “Relevant domestic law” below).
The decision was served on the applicant on 10 June 2004. 17.  On 9 July 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended – “the Constitution”).
He argued that his detention had been unlawful ab initio on the ground that when it began he had not been brought before a judge within the period of twenty-four hours required by Article 8 § 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Law no. 23/1991 Coll.) (Listina základných práv a slobôd – “the Charter”). It was true that the time-limit for bringing a detained person (zadržaná osoba) before a judge under Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution, as amended with effect from 1 July 2001 (Constitutional Law no. 90/2001 Coll.), was forty-eight hours. However, neither the Constitution nor any other legislation had expressly repealed the Charter and an implicit repeal was not permissible. The Charter guaranteed him broader legal protection and had to be applied in his case. 18.  The applicant further contended that the courts had failed independently to examine the existence of any “reasonable suspicion” against him and, explaining the private-law dimension of the impugned transaction, argued that there was no criminal case to answer. 19.  The applicant went on to argue that he had no knowledge of any tax evasion charges against him, that there was no evidence of any such charges having actually been raised against him and that, therefore, an assertion to that effect was not a ground for detaining him. 20.  The applicant also claimed that the decisions of 31 March and 6 May 2004 had been one-sided in favour of the prosecution, that they lacked adequate reasoning and were generally arbitrary and that he had not had sufficient opportunity to take part in the proceedings as they had been held in camera. 21.  Lastly, the applicant argued that the Regional Court had entirely omitted to give a formal ruling on his offer of a pledge under Article 73 § 1 (b) of the CCP, and that the proceedings on his appeal against his detention had not been speedy. 22.  On 9 February 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It held that all the formal requirements had been met for remanding the applicant in custody and that the Constitutional Court was not a court of appeal and therefore had no power to review as such the assessment of the facts and the interpretation and application of the law by the ordinary courts. 23.  As to the discrepancy between the time-limits for bringing a detained person before a judge under the Charter (twenty-four hours) and the Constitution (forty-eight hours), the Constitutional Court held that, pursuant to Article 152 § 4 of the Constitution, the constitutional provision prevailed. 24.  The principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms did not apply in proceedings concerning pre-trial detention and, specifically, in remand proceedings. It had been open to the applicant to substantiate his claim that he was not being prosecuted on other charges and, as he had not done so, the claim could not be accepted. 25.  The decisions of the District Court and the Regional Court were to be understood in their entirety and any possible shortcomings in the reasoning of the former had been repaired by the latter. 26.  A pledge under Article 73 § 1 (b) of the CCP did not arise either under the Convention or under the CCP in cases of detention under Article 67 § 1 (c) of the CCP such as that of the applicant which, moreover, was expressly excluded by Article 73 § 3 of the CCP, in conjunction with 62 § 1 of the CC. 27.  Finally, the Constitutional Court observed that it had taken seventy‑one days (from 31 March to 10 June 2004) for the Regional Court to rule on the applicant’s interlocutory appeal against detention and to have the decision served on him. However, the applicant had not submitted the grounds of his appeal until 19 April 2004 and the Regional Court had ruled on 6 May 2004, which was not an excessively long time. The period between the making and serving of the decision was not to be taken into account as the decision was not subject to appeal and had become final and binding (právoplatnosť) on the day it was made.
The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 23 March 2005. 28.  On 4 August 2004 the applicant requested release. By law the request fell to be determined first by the regional prosecutor, who dismissed it and on 10 August 2004 forwarded it ex officio to the District Court for judicial determination. 29.  On 7 September 2004 a single judge of the District Court ordered the applicant’s release on the ground that his continued detention was no longer justified. 30.  On 12 October 2004 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 7 September 2004 following an interlocutory appeal by the prosecutor, and ruled that the applicant should remain in detention. The decision was served on the applicant and his lawyer on 19 and 23 November 2004 respectively. 31.  On 21 January 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution. He contended mainly that there had been no hearing and that he had been deprived of an opportunity to reply to the prosecutor’s appeal. The applicant also complained that the decision of 12 October 2004 had been arbitrary and that the proceedings on his request for release had not been speedy. 32.  On 14 September 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as out of time. With reference to its previous decisions in cases nos. III. ÚS 90/03, III. ÚS 188/03, III. ÚS 332/04 and II. ÚS 246/06, the Constitutional Court observed that when a decision under the CCP which was final was served on a complainant and his or her lawyer, the applicable two-month time-limit for challenging such decision by way of a constitutional complaint started on the day when the decision was served on the complainant. In the applicant’s case, the time-limit started to run on 19 November 2004 and ended on 19 January 2005, whereas his complaint had not been lodged until 21 January 2005. 33.  On 17 September 2004 the regional prosecutor requested the District Court to authorise an extension of the detention of the applicant and all his co-defendants until 29 December 2004. 34.  On 21 September 2004 a single judge of the District Court rejected the request. 35.  On 14 October 2004 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 21 September 2004 following an interlocutory appeal by the prosecutor, and ruled that the applicant should remain in detention until 29 December 2004. The decision was served on the applicant on 29 October 2004 and on his lawyer on 2 November 2004. 36.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court on 30 December 2004 under Article 127 of the Constitution. The complaint arrived at the Constitutional Court on 2 January 2005. 37.  The applicant contended mainly that there had been no hearing on the prosecutor’s request for extension of his detention and on the prosecutor’s appeal and that he had been deprived of an opportunity to reply to that appeal. He also complained that the decision of 14 October 2004 had been arbitrary and that the proceedings had not been speedy. 38.  On 1 June 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as having been lodged out of time. It observed that the extension of the applicant’s detention had become final and binding (právoplatnosť) on the day when the Regional Court quashed the decision of the District Court and resolved the matter itself, irrespective of when a written copy of the Regional Court’s decision had been served on the parties.
The Constitutional Court held that, therefore, the two-month time-limit in the present case had commenced on 14 October 2004 and ended on 14 December 2004, whereas the constitutional complaint had not reached the Constitutional Court until 2 January 2005.
The Constitutional Court also observed that, even if the two-month time‑limit were to be counted from the date of service of the impugned decision on the applicant, which was 29 October 2004, the applicant’s constitutional complaint was out of time.