CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 avril 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 1 April 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49905/08 Róbert ČAČKO against Slovakia lodged on 10 October 2008     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTION     Given that the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant the Criminal Code of 1961 after the entry into force of the Criminal Code of 2005, is the possibility of conditional release pursuant to Article 67 § 2 read in conjunction with Article 437 § 2 of the latter Code applicable to his case, or is the prohibition on a conditional release of whole-life prisoners convicted under Article 43 § 1 of the Criminal Code of 1961, as confirmed by Article 437 § 3 of the Criminal Code of 2005 absolute irrespective of the date of their conviction?   The Government are further invited to inform the Court of any judicial practice under the above provisions.