CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 15518/22 Tomáš MARKECH against Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16   May   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18   March 2022, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The application was lodged by Mr Tomáš Markech, a Slovak national, who was born in 1988. He was represented by Ms M. Lichnerová, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of judicial review of detention were communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Bálintová, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant lodged a request for release with the prosecutor on 13   July   2021. The latter dismissed it and transmitted the casefile to the Specialised Criminal Court on 19 July 2021. On 9 August 2021 the latter dismissed the request and on 24 August 2021 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal. On 27 August 2021 the casefile was returned to the Specialised Criminal Court, who served the decision on the applicant’s lawyer on 2 September 2021. The applicant himself, who had been in the meantime moved to another remand centre, was served with the decision on 18   November   2021. On 16 February 2022 (no. II. ÚS 65/2022) the Constitutional Court dismissed as manifestly ill-founded a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant on 17 December 2021. It found that the length of the judicial review of the applicant’s detention, which – calculated from 19   July   2021 until 2   September 2021 – amounted to forty-six days before two levels of jurisdiction, was in line with the requirement of speediness. Due to formal shortcomings of the applicant’s constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court did not examine the period during which the applicant’s request for release had been pending before the prosecutor. THE LAW The Government referred to the Constitutional Court’s decision delivered in the applicant’s case, arguing that his complaints were manifestly ill ‑ founded. The Court refers to the relevant principles described in the leading case of Osváthová v. Slovakia (no. 15684/05, §§ 69-77, 21   December   2010). It   reiterates that, according to its case-law, the period under consideration for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention begins with the lodging of the application with the domestic authorities and, in the absence of a public pronouncement of the decision, ends on the day the decision is communicated to the applicant or to his representative (see,   for example, Singh v.   the Czech Republic , no.   60538/00, § 74, 25 January 2005, and   Cabala v.   Slovakia , no.   8607/02, § 68, 6   September   2007). In the present case, given that the applicant failed to duly challenge the prosecutor’s conduct before the Constitutional Court, the Court considers that the period to be examined started on 19 July 2021 when his request for release reached the Specialised Criminal Court (see,   mutatis mutandis ,   Schram v.   Slovakia   [Committee], no.   8555/17, § 18, 23 October 2018). Since the applicant’s complaint before the Court related to the conduct of the Specialised Criminal Court and the Supreme Court (but not the Constitutional Court), the Court observes that it covers the period until 2   September   2021 when the final decision of the Supreme Court was served on the applicant’s lawyer. The period under consideration thus lasted one month and fourteen days, during which time the applicant’s request for release was examined by two levels of courts. It follows from the file that the examination was conducted without any delays which would be in breach of the “speediness” requirement laid down in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the length of the judicial review of detention in the present case was not excessive. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 June 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay   Acting Deputy Registrar   President