ALOJZ v. SLOVAKIA
Inadmissible
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria
1. The applicant, Mr Daniel Alojz, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Banská Bystrica. 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 3 and 5 April 2009, respectively, the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody pending trial on drugrelated charges. 5. On 28 October 2009, he submitted a request to the Trenčín District Court (Okresný súd), as the remand court, for his release. The request arrived there by mail on 30 October 2009. 6. As by law the request fell to be determined first by the Public Prosecution Service, the District Court sent it to the District Office of Public Prosecution, which dismissed it and returned the matter to the District Court on 18 November 2009. 7. The District Court scheduled an in-chambers hearing (neverejné zasadnutie) of the applicant’s request for 4 December 2009. However, the hearing was rescheduled for 18 December 2009 at the request of the applicants’ lawyer, who was unable to attend on the former date as she was to attend a conference. 8. Meanwhile, on 9 December 2009, the applicant was indicted to stand trial on the above-mentioned charges. As a consequence, the case was assigned to a new judge, as the trial judge. 9. Following the hearing of 18 December 2009 before the trial judge, on the same day, the District Court dismissed the request. When the decision was pronounced, the applicant immediately lodged an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť). 10. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 28 January 2010. The written version of that decision was served on the applicant through the intermediary of the District Court on 18 February 2010. 11. On 19 February 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd), concerning the length of the proceedings on his request for release of 28 October 2009. 12. On 20 April 2010 the Constitutional Court appointed a legalaid lawyer to represent the applicant. The lawyer restated the applicant’s complaint on 21 May 2010. In a standardised and prescribed form (petit), the lawyer directed the complaint against the District Court, alleging that the applicant’s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention had been breached in the proceedings on the applicants’ request for release of 28 October 2009. He claimed 1,500 euros (EUR) in damages. 13. On 22 June and 25 August 2010 respectively, the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and found a violation of the applicant’s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention. It awarded him EUR 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 14. The Constitutional Court observed that it had taken the District Court fifty-one days to decide on the applicant’’ rights. 15. The applicant unsuccessfully requested release also on other occasions, both prior to and after the request of 28 October 2009. The trial on the merits ended with the District Court and the Regional Court convicting the applicant and sentencing him to ten years in prison on 23 February and 2 June 2011 respectively. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was rejected on 29 February 2012. He subsequently sought the re-opening of his trial, but was unsuccessful.