CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 October 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 28092/23 Branislav ADAMČO against Slovakia lodged on 11 July 2023 communicated on 8 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application essentially concerns the status of two lay assessor judges ( prísediaci ) in a three ‑ judge formation of a Chamber determining the applicant’s request for release from detention pending trial. The central question in the present case is the selection and appointment of the lay assessor judges to the composition in the specific case, from among several other lay assessor judges assigned to the given Chamber by means of the work schedule ( rozvrh práce ) of the relevant court in force at the relevant time. In a letter 19 May 2022, in response to the applicant’s request under the Free Access to Information Act, the President of the Banská Bystrica District Court informed him that “the selection of lay assessor judges within individual Chambers [was] a prerogative of the acting President of the given Chamber, while [it] [was] not governed by any statutory rules and, unlike with the choice of a [professional] judge, it [did] not follow a   random algorithm”. Based on this information, the applicant challenged the lay assessor judges sitting in his case arguing that they did not meet the requirements for a lawfully appointed judge ( zákonný sudca ). Ordinary courts at two levels and ultimately also the Constitutional Court (case no. I. ÚS 176/2023) held that the applicant’s objection called for no answer since he had failed to raise it without undue delay after having established the grounds for it. In that connection, it was noted that he had learned of the composition of his Chamber at least six weeks prior to raising his objection. The courts gave no response to the applicant’s argument that the grounds for his objection in fact had to do with the manner of the appointment of the two lay assessor judges, of which he had learned from the letter of 19 May 2022 only, and in response to which he raised his objection instantly. In parallel, the District Court sitting in the composition in question dismissed the applicant’s request for release as unfounded. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, that the composition deciding on his request for release from detention was unlawful. He also alleges a violation of his rights under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention. In support of his complaints, the applicant relies also on a decision of the Košice Regional Court of 29 June 2023 in an unrelated case dealing with substantially the same legal question, in which the court noted that lay assessor judges were bound to be available for the exercise of their judicial function and that, accordingly and irrespective of the work schedule of the relevant court, their assignment to a specific formation on the basis of their availability was short of the requirement of assignment by a random algorithm and as such impermissible. In that regard, the court noted a unifying decision ( zjednocujúce stanovisko ) of the Criminal Law Bench of the Supreme Court dated 16 June 2015 (Tpj 73/2014) to the effect that there were no grounds for questioning the status of lay assessor judges as lawfully appointed judges within the meaning of Article 48 § 1 of the Constitution (Constitutional law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     With reference to his request for release of 24 May 2022, was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the lawfulness of his detention decided by a court compatible with the requirements of that provision (see Lavents v. Latvia , no. 58442/00, § 81, 28   November 2002, and Baş v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, §§ 266 and 267, 3   March 2020; compare also mutatis mutandis , Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 212-17 and 223-34, 1   December 2020 )?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 4, as   required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?