THIRD SECTION
Application no. 7517/10
Peter ĎURAČKA
against Slovakia
lodged on 25 January 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Peter Ďuračka, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1960. He is currently serving a term of imprisonment in Košice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 February 2009 the applicant posted a complaint to the Constitutional Court. With reference to criminal proceedings leading to his conviction and his detention in that context the applicant alleged a breach of his rights by police, prosecuting authorities and courts involved as well as by the prison where he had been detained.
In particular, the applicant alleged a breach of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on a number of grounds, in criminal proceedings leading to his conviction which had ended by the Supreme Court’s judgment file no. 4 To 2/2008 of 30 October 2008. The applicant indicated that that judgment had been served on him through the Bratislava Regional Court on 12 December 2008.
The applicant further alleged a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in that he had been detained without any legal ground from 30 October 2008 to 3 November 2008 as the order for service of the prison term which the Supreme Court had issued on the former date had been delivered to the prison on the latter. The applicant indicated that he lodged his complaint in that respect immediately after he had established that fact in the file.
Finally, the applicant asked the Constitutional Court to appoint an advocate to represent him in the proceedings.
The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint on 27 May 2009 as having been filed outside the statutory time-limit of two months. With reference to the file it held that the Supreme Court’s judgment with reasons had been served on the applicant in prison on 10 December 2008. The above time-limit had started running on 11 December 2008 and it had expired on 11 February 2009. However, the applicant had posted his complaint on 12 February 2009, that is belatedly. That conclusion was also relevant in respect of alleged breaches of the applicant’s rights preceding the above judgment of the Supreme Court.
The Constitutional Court’s decision indicated that in the above circumstances it was superfluous to decide on the applicant’s request for the appointment of a lawyer. It was served on the applicant on 8 October 2009.
According to a copy of the applicant’s record of prison correspondence, he submitted a letter addressed to the Bratislava Regional Court for posting by the prison administration on 10 December 2008. A different entry indicates that the prison administration received, on 12 December 2008, a letter from the Bratislava Regional Court addressed to the applicant and bearing the file number of the criminal proceedings against him. The prison administration transmitted the letter to the applicant on the same day.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant alleges a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in that he was detained without any relevant legal ground from 30 October 2008 to 3 November 2008.
2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to a court was breached as a result of the Constitutional Court’s refusal to deal with his complaint.
3. Finally, the applicant alleges a breach of Article 6 § 3(c) of the Convention as a result of the Constitutional Court’s failure to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as regards his complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the action under the State Liability Act 2003 an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1?
2. If so, was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention during the period between 30 October 2008 and 3 November 2008?
3. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his right of access to a court respected as regards the proceedings before the Constitutional Court?
4. Was the failure by the Constitutional Court to decide on the applicant’s request for the appointment of a lawyer contrary to his right under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy