CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17 September 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 40132/16 Alexander SALMANOV against Slovakia lodged on 6 July 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a judicial review, initiated by the applicant’s request for release of 25 September 2014, of the lawfulness of his detention on remand. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4, 5 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the lack of any award of just satisfaction obtained at the domestic level, despite the fact that the Constitutional Court found a violation of his right to liberty due to a lack of adequate reasons given for the continued detention, as well as due to the length of the judicial review itself. The applicant further complains that his request for release was not decided speedily and that he was kept in detention without relevant reasons. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     With regard to the fact that the applicant can still be considered a victim of the alleged violations of Article 5 of the Convention (see Petrov v.   Slovakia , no. 64195/10, § 41, 2 December 2014; Horváth v. Slovakia , no.   5515/09, §§ 90-96, 27 November 2012), has there been a breach of Article 5   §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Were the reasons for which the Supreme Court, in its decision of 10   December 2014, considered the applicant’s continued detention necessary, relevant and sufficient? (b)     Did the length of the proceedings on the applicant’s request for release of 25 September 2014 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in contravention of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant’s constitutional complaint in the present case provide an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?