THIRD SECTION
Application no. 43009/10
Khizri AKHADOV
against Slovakia
lodged on 19 July 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Khizri Akhadov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Žilina. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Škamla, a lawyer practising in Žilina.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
2. On 26 June 2009 the applicant presented himself to the Asylum Authority in Gbely with the intention to apply for asylum in Slovakia. From there, he was escorted to Bratislava Department of Foreigners Police, where he arrived at round 3 p.m. Following a questioning, on the same day, the Foreigners Police decided to detain him. It was found, inter alia, that the applicant was staying in Slovakia without a valid travel document and any lawful title, and despite a previous decision to expel him from Slovakia and ban him from returning there for five years.
3. Under the order of 26 June 2009, the applicant was detained in the Medveďov detention centre.
4. On 13 July 2009 the applicant lodged an application with the Trnava Regional Court (Krajský súd) for a judicial review of the order of 26 June 2009, challenging the assessment of the fact and interpretation and application of the law by the police.
5. On 13 August 2009 the claim was dismissed on the basis of the parties’ written pleadings as well as oral submissions at a haring, at which the applicant had been represented by a lawyer. The applicant himself had neither been present nor invited. The written version of the judgment was sent out on 27 August and served on the applicant on 7 September 2009.
6. On 2 November 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) relying on Articles 127 of the Constitution (individual complaint) and 5 § 4 (speedy review of the lawfulness of detention) of the Convention and contesting the length of the proceedings in respect of his application of 13 July 2009.
7. On 16 December 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill founded. It observed that the Regional Court had afforded the police as much as 15 days to submit observations in reply to the applicant’s claim and held that such a period was disproportionately long.
However, overall, the decision-making process in respect of the applicant’s claim had only lasted 29 days, and not 31 days, as argued by the applicant. In that respect, the Constitutional Court observed that his claim of 13 July 2009 had only reached the Regional Court on 16 July 2009, and that the applicant had constructively learned of the Regional Court’s judgement through the intermediary of his lawyer right at the hearing of 13 August 2009, at which the lawyer had been present.
The written version of the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 21 January 2010.
COMPLAINT
8. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in respect of his claim of 13 July 2009 had been incompatible with the requirement of a “speedy” review.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
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, did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of that Article?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy