CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 15 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7486CA7E { width:0.34pt; display:inline-block } .s677E1C19 { width:166.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF BEŠINA v. SLOVAKIA (Application no. 63770/17)         JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG 15 April 2021 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bešina v. Slovakia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a   Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay, President,   Alena Poláčková,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 January 2018. 2.     On 5 March 2020 the Slovak Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 3.     The applicant, Mr Karol Bešina, is a Slovak national who was born in 1980 and, at the time of lodging the application, was detained on remand in Bratislava. 4.     On 8 February 2017 a prosecutor lodged a request with the Bratislava III District Court, seeking an order for the applicant’s detention pending trial. On the following day the District Court remanded him in custody, which he challenged by an oral interlocutory appeal, requesting to be assigned a lawyer. The court appointed an ex officio lawyer. 5.     On 15 February 2017 the applicant submitted written grounds for appeal. He then filed additional submissions three times within the following two weeks. His lawyer likewise submitted grounds for appeal. 6.     On 7 March 2017 the District Court transmitted the case file to the Bratislava Regional Court for determination on appeal.   The appeal was dismissed a week later. The decision was served on the applicant on 23   March 2017. 7.     The applicant’s complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court as manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court found, inter alia , that the judicial review of detention had lasted from 8 February to 14 March 2017, i.e. thirty-four days, and an additional nine days until the Regional Court’s decision had been delivered. In its view, the total duration of forty ‑ two days before two levels of courts was in line with the requirement of “speediness”. That decision no.   I.   ÚS 338/2017 of 14 June 2017 was served on the applicant on 7   August 2017. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 of the Convention 8.     The applicant complained of the excessive length of judicial review of detention before the ordinary courts. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 5 § 4 “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” 9.     The Government referred to the Constitutional Court’s decision, arguing that the period from 9 February to 3 March 2017, during which the applicant and his lawyer had filed additional submissions, could not be attributed to the courts. They proposed to declare the complaint manifestly ill-founded. 10.     The Court refers to the relevant principles described in the leading case of Osváthová v. Slovakia (no. 15684/05, §§ 69-77, 21 December 2010). 11.     In the present case the applicant lodged his interlocutory appeal orally immediately after the detention order of 9 February 2017. Following the submission by him of the grounds for appeal on 15 February 2017, the appeal was decided on 14 March 2017. The decision was, however, not delivered publicly and the applicant only learned of it when it was served on him on 23 March 2017 (see, for example, Cabala v. Slovakia , no. 8607/02, § 68, 6 September 2007, and Singh v. the Czech Republic , no. 60538/00, §   74, 25 January 2005). The proceedings under examination thus lasted forty-one days, in which period the applicant’s appeal was judicially examined by a single court, the Regional Court. 12.     The Court has found nothing to justify a conclusion that the applicant’s detention matter was of any particular complexity. As to the conduct of the applicant, it is true that six days passed between the date when he lodged his interlocutory appeal orally and the date when he submitted the grounds of his appeal in writing. It is also true that the applicant and his lawyer filed additional submissions between 15 February and 3 March 2017. However, nothing in the case file indicates – nor do the Government raise any argument in that regard – that the District Court had to wait for the additional submissions to transmit the casefile for determination on appeal, since it had at its disposal the applicant’s written reasons of 15 February 2017. Furthermore, it took the District Court twenty days to send the casefile to the Regional Court (from 15   February to 7   March 2017). As a result, it took twenty-seven days from 15 February 2017 to have the applicant’s appeal decided on 14 March 2017 and nine further days to have the decision served on him on 23 March 2017. 13.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Osváthová , cited above, § 38; Štetiar and Šutek v. Slovakia , nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, § 129, 23 November 2010; Gál v. Slovakia , no. 45426/06, §   63, 30 November 2010; and Michalko v. Slovakia , no. 35377/05, § 168, 21   December 2010), the Court considers that in the instant case there has been a violation of Article   5 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Osváthová , cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant 1,600 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him. 16.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of judicial review of detention admissible; Holds that this complaint discloses a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of judicial review of detention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 1,600 (one thousand and six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 April 2021, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay Acting Deputy Registrar   President