Published on 10 January 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 59217/21
Dominik KRÁTKY
against Slovakia
lodged on 23 November 2021
communicated on 17 December 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present application raises several issues related to the applicant’s detention. It is linked to two other applications (nos. 8058/21 and 21850/21) lodged by the applicant previously, and which have already been communicated to the Respondent State.
Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, the applicant submits that in its decision of 26 June 2019 the Supreme Court failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention and merely repeated the reasoning from the previous decisions. He further complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that due to the use of unfortunate language the Specialised Criminal Court prejudged his guilt in its detention decision of 12 June 2019, but that his objection of bias filed in this respect was not dealt with. Moreover, he complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court failed to decide speedily on his constitutional complaint of 30 August 2019 (no. I. ÚS 279/2021) against the ordinary courts’ refusal to release him from detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the length of the applicant’s detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, in light of the decision of 26 June 2019, did the Supreme Court provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s continued detention and did the competent authorities display special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against him (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016; Petrov v. Slovakia, no. 64195/10, § 55, 2 December 2014; and Kuc v. Slovakia, no. 37498/14, §§ 50-60, 25 July 2017)?
2. With regard to the applicant’s objection of bias, raised in respect of the wording of the Specialised Criminal Court’s decision of 12 June 2019, did the applicant benefit from the procedural guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the examination of his request for release of 3 June 2019? In particular, was the Specialised Criminal Court impartial as required by that provision and was the applicant’s objection of bias duly dealt with by the domestic authorities (see Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 266-67, 3 March 2020)?
3. Did the length of the proceedings (no. I. ÚS 279/2021) before the Constitutional Court, in which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Žúbor v. Slovakia, no. 7711/06, §§ 89‑90, 6 December 2011)?