CASE OF MASLÁK  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)
Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicant was born in 1979 and habitually resides in Pružina. 6. Between 29 October 2007 and 12 March 2009 the applicant was charged with a number of offences, mainly of a violent nature and with an organised crime background. 7. On 27 September 2008 he was arrested in the context of his prosecution on these charges, and subsequently remanded in custody pending trial. At the time of his request for release, which forms the subject matter of this application and is described in detail below, his detention was authorised by the Special Court (Špeciálny súd) until 27 September 2009. 8. After the events complained of, the applicant was released on 1 April 2010. However, the criminal proceedings against him appear to be still pending. 9. By a submission dated 20 May 2009, addressed to the Office of Special Prosecutions (Úrad Špeciálnej prokuratúry - “the OSP”), and received by its addressee on 26 May 2009, the applicant requested release. He relied on a recent judgment of the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) concerning the status of the Special Court (see Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, §§ 11-15 and 68-89, 21 June 2011), argued that his detention on the authority of the Special Court had been unlawful, and maintained that his detention had in any event been unwarranted. 10. By a submission dated 21 May 2009, the applicant addressed a similar request to the Office of the Prosecutor General (Generálna prokuratúra - “the OPG”), where it was received on 25 May 2009. 11. Lastly, by a submission dated 21 May 2009, addressed to the Special Court and received there on 29 May 2009, the applicant requested release on similar grounds and offered a formal pledge that, if released, he would live in accordance with the law. 12. By law, all three submissions fell to be examined at first instance by the OSP. Those made to the OPG and the Special Court were therefore transmitted to the OSP on 26 May and 3 June 2009, respectively. 13. As the OSP did not grant the request formulated in the three submissions, they fell to be judicially examined by the Special Court, to which they were transmitted on 2 and 3 June 2009, respectively. 14. By way of a submission dated 23 May 2009, which was received by the Special Court on 29 May 2009, the applicant expressed objections to the handling of his case by the Special Court judge who was handling his detention case at first-instance, which the Special Court interpreted as a challenge to the judge on the grounds of bias. 15. On 2 June 2009 the challenge was dismissed. On 10 June 2009 the decision was served on the applicant and on 11 June 2009 he lodged an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť), which was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) on 24 June 2009. The case file was returned to the Special Court on 1 July 2009. 16. On 1 July 2009 the Special Court ordered that the request be examined in the framework of a public session (verejné zasadnutie) to be held on 13 July 2009. 17. On 8 July 2009 the Special Court was informed that the applicant’s lawyer had been struck off the list of counsel and thus could no longer represent him. In response, on 9 July 2009 the Special Court enquired of the investigator whether the applicant had been asked to appoint a new lawyer and, if so, whether he had actually done so. Later on the same day, the investigator asked the applicant to appoint a lawyer within three days, failing which a lawyer would be appointed for him by the court. 18. On 13 July 2009 the applicant was heard before the Special Court. He submitted that it was his intention to appoint a lawyer, that the three-day timescale allowed him for that purpose had been unrealistically short, and that he disagreed with having a lawyer appointed for him by court. 19. In the circumstances ‒ as legal representation was mandatory ‒ the public session scheduled for later on 13 July 2009 had to be cancelled. 20. Nevertheless, on the same day, that is on 13 July 2009, the applicant also made a written submission containing his arguments and waiving his right to have the request for release examined in a public session. 21. On 16 July 2009 the Special Court appointed a lawyer for the applicant and dismissed the applicant’s request for release. The written version of the decision to dismiss the applicant’s request for release was served on his courtappointed lawyer on 21 July 2009, on his subsequently appointed lawyer of choice on 27 July 2009, and on the applicant himself on 30 July 2009. In it, the Special Court recapitulated the procedural history and the applicable statutory provisions. In addition, it observed that the Constitutional Court’s judgment referred to by the applicant (see paragraph 9 above) had not yet been published in the Collection of Laws. Its rulings had thus not entered into force yet and the Special Court’s status was not compromised for the time being. Moreover, the Special Court explained in detail why it considered the applicant’s detention necessary and why his release in return for a pledge of lawful conduct was not acceptable. 22. By way of an interlocutory appeal lodged by both the applicant’s lawyer and the applicant himself, the applicant challenged the decision of 16 July 2009 to dismiss his request for release. The appeal lodged by his lawyer was dated 23 July 2009, was addressed to the Special Court, reached its addressee on 27 July 2009, and was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 31 July 2009. The applicant’s own appeal was dated 2 August 2009, was addressed directly to the Supreme Court, and was received there on 5 August 2009. 23. At the same time as lodging the appeal, the applicant challenged the entire criminal-law bench of the Supreme Court on grounds of bias, once again relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment mentioned above (see paragraph 9). 24. On 13 August 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge. Prior to this decision, all the Supreme Court judges concerned had been asked to state a position in respect of the challenge and a special chamber had been appointed to rule on it. 25. On 25 August 2009, sitting in private (neverejné zasadnutie), the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal against the decision of 16 July 2009. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 2 September 2009. 26. On 4 November 2009 the applicant filed a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) with the Constitutional Court. The complaint was directed against the Specialised Criminal Court (Špecializovaný trestný súd), which had by then come into being as the legal successor to the Special Court, and also against the Supreme Court and the OSP. 27. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalents, he argued that his request for release had not been determined by an independent tribunal, that its dismissal had not been supported by adequate reasoning, that he had arbitrarily been denied his right to release pending trial, and that his request had not been determined “speedily”. 28. In terms of relief, the applicant requested that the decisions of 16 July and 25 August 2009 be quashed, that his release be ordered, and that he be awarded 21,000 euros (EUR) by way of compensation for nonpecuniary damage, plus reimbursement of his legal costs. 29. On 17 June 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible for being in essence manifestly ill-founded. 30. As to the complaint about the alleged failure to achieve a speedy determination of the applicant’s request, the Constitutional Court observed, in particular, that the delay in serving the Special Court’s decision of 16 July 2009 on his lawyer of choice and the applicant himself (see paragraph 20 above) was due to the facts that the lawyer of the applicant’s choice had only announced his appointment to the police, that this information had accordingly had to be transmitted to the court, which had taken some time, and that the prosecution service had failed to inform the court that, at the given time, the applicant had been transferred to a prison other than the one known to the court, as a consequence of which the decision had been sent to a wrong address and had had to be sent again. 31. Examining separately the proceedings before the Special Court and the Supreme Court and the involvement of the OSP, the Constitutional Court concluded that, taking into account all the circumstances, there had been no delays attributable to the authorities that had reached a constitutionally relevant threshold. From that perspective, the Constitutional Court considered that any delays resulting from the applicant’s challenges alleging bias had been imputable to him and that the relevance of the delays in serving the Special Court’s decision of 16 July 2009 on the applicant (on 30 July 2009) ‒ which had been due to a lack of coordination among the authorities concerned ‒ had been diminished by the service of that decision on the lawyer of the applicant’s choice on 27 July 2009. The written version of the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 26 August 2010.