CASE OF MASLÁK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)
Branko Lubarda;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
5. The first applicant was born in 1979, while the second and third applicants were born in 1984 and 1983, respectively. They all habitually reside in Pružina. 6. Since 2007 the applicants have been facing multiple charges mainly concerning alleged violent offences, against a background of organised crime. In the context of their prosecution on these charges, they were arrested, remanded, released, and re-arrested and re-remanded several times. 7. A part of the present application directly relates to three of their unsuccessful requests for release from detention following their arrest on 1 April 2010 on a charge of perjury. These requests and the underlying procedures are described in chronological order in sections B. to D. below. 8. The applicants’ term of detention following the arrest of 1 April 2010 ended with their release on 1 April 2011, subsequent to which, on the same day, they were again arrested and later remanded in detention pending trial on a charge of extortion. The remainder of the application directly concerns their interlocutory appeal against the remand order following that arrest and, together with the underlying procedure, it is described below in section E. 9. On 2 May 2010 the first applicant made a submission requesting release. It was received at the Považská Bystrica District Court on 11 May 2010 and the applicant amended it by means of a further submission, which reached the District Court on 19 May 2010. 10. On 21 May 2010 the District Court heard the first applicant. In the course of the questioning he challenged the judge in charge of the case on grounds of bias, alleging that there had been an arbitrary interference with the organisation of the workload at the District Court, as a result of which the case had not been assigned to the lawful judge. 11. At the conclusion of the questioning on the same day, that is to say on 21 May 2010, the District Court dismissed the challenge. Immediately afterwards the first applicant used his right to state on the record that he wished to appeal against the decision on his challenge and he submitted his grounds for appeal on 24 May 2010. That appeal was dismissed by the Trenčín Regional Court on 10 June 2010, the decision being served on the first applicant on 21 June 2010. 12. The first applicant’s request for release was then dismissed by the District Court on 25 June 2010 and, following his interlocutory appeal, by the Regional Court on 20 July 2010, the latter decision being served on the applicant on 26 July 2010. 13. On 27 September 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court, arguing that the examination of his request for release had not been speedy, that its dismissal had been arbitrary, and that it had not been determined by the lawful judge. 14. On 4 October 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. As for the length of the proceedings in the first applicant’s request for release, the Constitutional Court recapitulated the course of those proceedings and found that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded as regards both the part of the proceedings that took place before the District Court and the part that took place before the Regional Court. The remaining complaints were partly out of time and partly manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the first applicant on 23 November 2011. 15. On 10 May 2010 the second applicant and the third applicant also requested release and offered to pledge under Article 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that, if released, they would live in accordance with the law. Their request was filed with the Považská Bystrica District Office of the Public Prosecution Service (“the PPS”) which was responsible for dealing with it in the first instance. 16. Finding no reasons for acceding to it, on 17 May 2010 the PPS transmitted the request to the District Court for a judicial determination. The case file was received at the District Court on 21 May 2010. Having established that the case file was incomplete, the District Court asked the PPS for a complete version of it on 27 May 2010, which was submitted to the District Court on 2 June 2010. Meanwhile, on 27 May 2010, the applicants waived their right to be heard in person by the District Court. 17. The request was dismissed by the District Court on 3 June 2010 and, following the applicants’ interlocutory appeal of 16 June 2010, by the Regional Court on 15 July 2010. The former decision was served on the applicants and two of their three lawyers on 9 June 2010. On 8 July 2010, by means of telephone inquiry in response to the impossibly of having it served on the third lawyer, the District Court established that the third lawyer had stopped representing the applicants, explaining the failure to inform the court accordingly by the fact that he had been on holiday. The latter decision was served on the applicants and on the lawyer of one of them on 2 August 2010. It was served on the other applicant’s lawyer on 9 August 2010. 18. On 30 September 2010 the second applicant and the third applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, directing it against the District Court and the Regional Court, and alleging a violation of their rights under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (and their constitutional equivalents) to a speedy review of the lawfulness of their detention by an impartial tribunal established by law and to release pending trial. 19. On 9 November 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. As for the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ request for release, the Constitutional Court recapitulated the course of those proceedings and observed that some delays had been caused by the failure of the authorities to submit a complete case file to the District Court and by the abovementioned failure of one of the applicants’ representatives to inform the court of the termination of his mandate, which had resulted in repeated and eventually futile attempts to serve the written copy of the District Court’s decision on him. The Constitutional Court concluded that neither before the District Court nor the Regional Court had the length of proceedings been incompatible with the speediness requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The remaining complaints were inadmissible partly because they were a res iudicata by virtue of a previous decision of the Constitutional Court and partly because they were manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the second applicant and the third applicant on 19 December 2011. 20. On 22 December 2010 the applicants lodged a fresh request for release. In response, the District Court informed them in a letter of 3 January 2011 that – without the submission of new relevant information – under the applicable statute a new request for release could be lodged at the earliest thirty days after the final determination of the previous request. As the applicants’ request of 22 December 2010 contained no such new information in relation to their previous request – which had only been dismissed with final effect on 16 December 2010 – it could not be entertained. 21. The first applicant amended his request by means of a further submission received at the District Court on 20 January 2011 while the second applicant and the third applicant did so by a submission received on 31 January 2011. 22. The request was dismissed by the District Court on 7 February 2011 and, following the applicants’ interlocutory appeal, by the Regional Court on 23 February 2011, the latter decision being served on the applicants on 2 March 2011. 23. On 31 March 2011 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging inter alia a violation of their rights under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 24. On 14 June 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It recapitulated the course of those proceedings and observed that – since the applicants’ request contained no new relevant information in relation to their previous request – the courts were prevented by law from examining it. The periods under consideration had therefore not commenced on 22 December 2010, as claimed by the applicants, but only on 20 and 31 January 2011, when they had amended the original request. From that perspective, the length of the impugned proceedings was acceptable. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicants on 18 August 2011. 25. Following their arrest on 1 April 2011 (see paragraph 8 above), the applicants were remanded in detention pending trial on a charge of extortion by the District Court’s order of 4 April 2011. 26. On 14 April 2011 the applicants challenged the detention order by means of an interlocutory appeal, which the Regional Court dismissed on 21 April 2011, its decision being served on the applicants on 19 May 2011. 27. On 15 June 2011 the applicants challenged these decisions before the Constitutional Court, alleging inter alia a violation of their rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, including the right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of their detention upon their interlocutory appeal against the detention order of 4 April 2011. 28. On 13 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The decision was served on the applicants on 16 January 2012. 29. Meanwhile, on 27 September 2011, the applicants were indicted to stand trial on the charge in question and, on 15 November 2011, they were released from detention. The proceedings on the merits appear to be still pending.