Communicated on 11 July 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 37498/14
Ladislav KUC
against Slovakia
lodged on 12 May 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Ladislav Kuc, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Košice. He is represented before the Court by Ms T. Vorobelová, a lawyer practising in Košice.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 1 January 2012 the applicant was arrested on the charge of terrorism on the suspicion that, with a view to promoting animals’ rights, he had been assembling booby traps; that he had sent some of them and some written threats to veterinarians and a head office of a supermarket chain; and that he had planted and let explode a booby trap by a fast food outlet.
4. On 4 January 2012 the Košice I District Court (Okresný súd) remanded the applicant in detention pending trial on the above charge. Following his interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť), the detention order was upheld by the Košice Regional Court on 17 January 2012.
5. The applicant’s detention was found to be necessary in order to prevent him from continuing criminal activities, to which a further ground for detaining him was added at an unspecified later time, in particular to prevent him from fleeing, within the meaning of Article 71 § 1 (a) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively.
6. On 19 June 2013 the applicant was found guilty as charged and the District Court sentenced him to twenty five years in prison. However, following the applicant’s appeal (odvolanie), on 30 October 2013 the Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for re-examination.
7. The Regional Court observed that, in the course of the appellate proceedings, the applicant had submitted a report by two sworn experts concluding that he had long been suffering from a schizotypal disorder preventing him from understanding the illegal nature of his behaviour and from controlling it. These conclusions were contrary to those that had been reached by experts at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. The resolution of this contradiction was imperative for establishing whether or not the applicant was criminally liable and it had to be ensured by obtaining a third view from an expert institute. In addition, the Regional Court instructed the District Court to resolve a further issue concerning the legal qualification of the impugned actions of the applicant.
8. Following the remittal, the case has been pending before the first‑instance court.
9. On 23 December 2013, the applicant requested release, pointing out his mental condition and submitting that he was fully dependant on his parents, emotionally, financially and by way of everyday care. There was thus no option for him to flee, of which there was accordingly no real risk.
In addition, if he continued his medication and treatment, there was no risk of reoffending either.
10. The applicant’s request for release was supported by his parents, who offered to stand as a guarantee; by his own pledge that, if released, he would live in accordance with the law; and by a request that his detention be replaced by supervision by a parole officer. In a subsequent submission, he also invoked his right to be presumed innocent.
11. The applicant’s request for release and the auxiliary motions were examined and dismissed by the District Court on 13 January 2014 and, following his interlocutory appeal, by the Regional Court on 29 January 2014.
12. The courts concluded that there persisted a strong suspicion against the applicant as well as the reasons for keeping him detained. They observed that he had long and systematically been planning his actions; that his parents had been unaware and unable to prevent the commission of the actions imputed to the applicant despite having him reside with them; that the applicant was facing a particular severe potential penalty; that he had publically been declaring that in the case of an arrest he would flee; and that “he [had] actively occupied himself with the thought of counterfeiting an ID”.
In addition, the courts found that the formal requirements had not been met for having the applicant’s parents stand as a guarantee, for accepting his pledge, and for replacing his detention by supervision.
No consideration was given to the applicant’s mental condition and its implications on his criminal liability.
13. The applicant subsequently turned to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) with a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, alleging a violation of his rights inter alia under Article §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention, or their constitutional equivalents.
As to the substance, he raised similar arguments as mentioned above and added that the courts had failed to take account of the specificity of his situation, consisting of his mental disorder; that the length of his detention had been excessive; that he did not deny having committed the offences in question; and that the only matter open was his criminal liability.
14. On 2 April 2014 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It cited extensively from the ordinary court’s decisions, endorsed their reasons, and concluded that they were relevant and sufficient for keeping the applicant detained.
The applicant’s argument concerning the specificity of his situation has gone unanswered.
15. The applicant is still in detention.
COMPLAINTS
16. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention that his detention has been arbitrary and too long and that the courts have failed to take into account the specificity of his situation and to give an answer to his argument to that effect.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention? In particular, in view of the absence of any judicial response upon his request for release of 23 December 2013 to the specificity of applicant’s situation, consisting of his mental condition with potential impact on his criminal liability, has his detention been free from arbitrariness?
2. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
3. With respect to the applicant’s request for release of 23 December 2013, and in view of the absence of any judicial response to his argument about the specificity of his situation, consisting of his mental condition with potential impact on his criminal liability, was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy