ĎURAČKA v. SLOVAKIA
Inadmissible
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos
1. The applicant, Mr Peter Ďuračka, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Jablonka, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. 2. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 30 October 2008 the Supreme Court quashed a first-instance judgment convicting the applicant of an offence. In its judgment the Supreme Court convicted the applicant of fraud. The Supreme Court also quashed a sentence which had been imposed in a different set of proceedings in 2007 and which the applicant had then been serving. It imposed a consolidated five-year prison term and a fine on the applicant. The applicant attended the hearing and the judgment became final upon its delivery on 30 October 2008. 5. On the same day the Supreme Court ordered that the applicant start serving his prison term immediately. On 3 November 2008 the order was received by the prison where the applicant was detained. 6. The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant twice. A receipt signed by the applicant indicates that the Supreme Court served the judgment on him on 10 December 2008; a second receipt indicates that the Bratislava Regional Court (which dealt with the case at first instance) served the Supreme Court’s judgment on the applicant on 12 December 2008. The Regional Court also served the judgment on the applicant’s lawyer on 10 December 2008. 7. On 10 February 2009 a senior judicial officer at the Bratislava Regional Court issued a decision to take into account, for the purpose of serving the consolidated prison term imposed by the Supreme Court, the period in which the applicant had been remanded in custody from 8 August 2004 to 27 January 2005 as well as the period from 21 May 2007 to 3 November 2008, when he had served a prison sentence imposed on him in a different set of criminal proceedings in 2007. 8. Following a complaint by the applicant, a judge rectified the above-mentioned decision on 23 March 2009. In particular, the judge noted that the applicant had started serving the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court on 30 November 2008. The period during which he had been serving a different sentence as from 21 May 2007 and which was to be taken into account as regards the term of the consolidated sentence had therefore ended on 30 November 2008. The Regional Court judge’s decision was served on the applicant on 30 March 2009. 9. On 27 February 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Supreme Court’s judgment of 30 October 2008. The proceedings are pending. 10. On 12 February 2009 the applicant posted a complaint to the Constitutional Court. With reference to the criminal proceedings that had led to his conviction and detention, he alleged that his rights had been breached by the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts, as well as by the administration of the prison where he had been detained. 11. In particular, the applicant alleged that his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been breached, on a number of grounds, in the criminal proceedings leading to his conviction. The Supreme Court had delivered its final judgment no. 4 To 2/2008 on 30 October 2008. The applicant stated that that judgment had been served on him through the Bratislava Regional Court on 12 December 2008. 12. The applicant further alleged that Article 5 § 1 of the Convention had been breached in that he had been detained without any legal grounds from 30 October to 3 November 2008, because the order imposing the service of the prison sentence which the Supreme Court had issued on the former date had been delivered to the prison on the latter. The applicant claimed that he had lodged a complaint in that respect immediately after he had established that fact in the file. Lastly, the applicant asked the Constitutional Court to appoint a lawyer to assist him in the proceedings. 13. The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint on 27 May 2009 as having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit of two months. With reference to the case file, it held that the Supreme Court’s judgment with reasons had been served on the applicant in prison on 10 December 2008. The time-limit had thus started to run on 11 December 2008 and had expired on 11 February 2009. However, the applicant had posted his complaint on 12 February 2009, that is belatedly. That conclusion was also relevant in respect of the applicant’s allegation that his rights had been breached before the above-mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court. 14. The Constitutional Court’s decision stated that in those circumstances it was not necessary to decide on the applicant’s request for the appointment of a lawyer. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 October 2009. 15. Section 53(3) of the Constitutional Court Act 1993 provides that a complaint to the Constitutional Court can be lodged within a period of two months from the date on which the decision in question has become final and binding, or on which a measure has been notified, or on which notice of other interference has been given. As regards measures and other interferences, this period commences when the plaintiff could have become aware of them. 16. The Constitutional Court has held that in cases where a final decision in the context of criminal proceedings is to be served on the person concerned, the time-limit of two months under section 53(3) of the Constitutional Court Act 1993 starts to run on the date of its service on that person, regardless of the date of its service on his or her lawyer (for example, decision file number IV. ÚS 131/08 of 17 April 2008, with further references).