CASE OF SCHVARC v. SLOVAKIA
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicant was born in 1978 and habitually resides in Krupina. 6. On 20, 21 and 22 May 2009 respectively the applicant was arrested, charged and remanded in custody on suspicion of unlawful production, possession and trafficking in drugs within the meaning of Article 172 § 1 (c) of the Criminal Code, on grounds that, if left at liberty, he would continue offending. 7. On 22 July 2009 the applicant requested release, and in support of his request he offered a pledge that he would live in accordance with the law and that he would not interfere with the course of justice. 8. On 3 August 2009 the Zovlen District Prosecutor found no reasons for releasing the applicant and transmitted his request to the Zvolen District Court (Okresný súd) for a judicial determination with a proposal that the request be dismissed. 9. On 19 August 2009 the District Court examined the request in chambers (neverejné zasadnutie), following which, on the same day, the request was dismissed. The District Court observed, inter alia, that by a judgment of 23 April 2009 the applicant had been convicted of theft. 10. Immediately after the decisions of 19 August 2009 had been pronounced, the applicant submitted an oral interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť), which he later amended with the assistance of his lawyer. 11. The written version of the District Court’s decision of 19 August 2009 was served on the applicant on 24 September 2009. 12. On 8 October 2009, sitting in chambers (neverejné zasadnutie), the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd) dismissed the applicant’s appeal, fully endorsing the reasoning of the District Court, adding that, at the same time, the applicant was also being prosecuted for other drugrelated offences. 13. On 16 October 2009 the written version of the Regional Court’s decision was transmitted to the District Court, which was responsible for ensuring service of that decision on the applicant. Service was effected on 30 October 2009. 14. On 11 November 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd), relying on Articles 127 of the Constitution and 5 § 4 of the Convention, challenging the length of the proceedings relating to his request for release, and claiming 1,500 euros (EUR) by way of just satisfaction. In support of the latter claim, he submitted that, while his request for release had been under examination, he had been in a state of legal uncertainty, which had had a particularly severe effect on his state of mind since he had been deprived of liberty. 15. On 20 January 2010 the Constitutional Court appointed the applicant a legal-aid lawyer and, on 18 February 2010, it declared the complaint admissible. 16. On 30 March 2010 the Constitutional Court issued a judgment (nález) finding a violation of the applicant’s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. At the same time, it awarded him EUR 500 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The amount was not explained by any particular reasons. The written version of the constitutional judgment was served on the applicant on 24 May 2010.