CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Published on 12 December 2022   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 50704/21, 27787/22 and 30195/22 Leon Leonard Johan VEEN against Slovakia lodged on 8 October 2021 and 25 May and 13 June 2022 communicated on 21 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications arise from the applicant’s prosecution in Slovakia on charges of aggravated drug trafficking. The charges were aimed at the applicant and another person as co-perpetrators. In the course of that prosecution, on 22 October 2020, the applicant was remanded in detention by a Slovakian court upon his surrender from the Netherlands. Following the other person’s guilty plea, on 22 April 2021 a Slovakian court convicted him in disjoined proceedings in a judgment that described his actions in a way that made reference to the applicant and his role in those offences. The convicting court’s chamber was presided over by a judge who, as a single judge, acted as the applicant’s pre-trial detention judge at first instance. Upon the filing of the indictment against the applicant on 23 September 2021, issues of his detention were dealt with by the trial chamber consisting of a different judge and two lay members. As the offence with which the applicant stands charged is considered to be particularly grave ( obzvlášť závažný zločin ), under Article 80 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure any possibility for his detention to be replaced by alternative measures was limited to instances when this was justified by exceptional circumstances ( výnimočné okolnosti prípadu ) and no such circumstances were found to be present in his case. In application no. 50704/21 the applicant complains that, in view of the references made to him in the judgment of 22 April 2021, when deciding on his continued detention on 27 April 2021 his detention judge was not impartial and that there has been a violation of his right to be presumed innocent. In applications nos. 27787/22 and 30195/22 the applicant challenges the lawfulness and justification of his continued detention, in connection with the decisions of the ordinary courts that were reviewed by the Constitutional Court in its decisions of 2 February and 10 May 2022. The case raises questions under Article 5 § 3 and § 4 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s continued detention under the decisions of the ordinary courts that ultimately resulted in the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 2 February and 10 May 2022 in conformity with the Article   5   § 3 of the Convention?   In particular,   -   in view of the reasons given by the courts in their decisions and the facts stated by the applicant in his appeals (see McKay v. the United Kingdom   [GC], no. 543/03, § 43, ECHR 2006-X), was his continued detention supported by “relevant and sufficient” reasons (see Buzadji v.   the Republic of Moldov a [GC], no. 23755/07, § 92, 5 July 2016)? -   if so, was the requisite special diligence exercised in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV)? -   in view of all the circumstances, including the limitations stemming from Article 80 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was the duty complied with to consider alternative measures of ensuring the applicant’s appearance at trial (see Jabłoński v. Poland , no. 33492/96, § 83, 21   December 2000)?   2.     In view of the references made to the applicant in the judgment of 22   April 2021, and the identity of the judge taking the decision of 27 April 2021, was the lawfulness of his continued detention decided upon on that occasion by a court complying with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Mucha v. Slovakia , no. 63703/19, §§   49-68, 25 November 2021, with further references)? 3.     In view of the references made to the applicant in the judgment of 22   April 2021, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6   §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?