Communicated on 17 January 2017
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos 3912/15 and 7675/15
Marek MÓRY against Slovakia
and Matus BENC against Slovakia
lodged on 14 January 2015 and 3 February 2015 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The first applicant, Mr Marek Móry (no. 3912/15), was born in 1973 and lives in Horná Kráľová in Šaľa District. The second applicant, Mr Matúš Benc (no. 7675/15), was born in 1980 and lives in Nitra. Both applicants are Slovak nationals. They are represented before the Court by Ms I. Lenčéšová, a lawyer practising in Nitra.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 March 2014 the Nitra District Court (“the District Court”) decided on the applicants’ pre-trial detention in the context of criminal proceedings in which charges had been brought against them for the continuous criminal offence of insurance fraud. They were detained on 11 March 2014.
With respect to the first applicant, the District Court decided that there was reason to suspect that he would influence witnesses, reoffend and continue to make financial gains.
With respect to the second applicant, the District Court concluded that there was reason to suspect that he would influence witnesses and his co‑accused to ensure that they gave a favourable testimony.
Both applicants lodged an interlocutory appeal, arguing that no specific reasons had been given in the District Court’s decision to justify their pre‑trial detention.
On 1 April 2014 the appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision and dismissed the applicants’ interlocutory appeal, referring to the findings of the lower court. It did not substitute their pre-trial detention with supervised probation.
The applicants lodged a joint constitutional complaint challenging the appellate court’s decision, which contained no specific reasons justifying their pre-trial detention. They each requested compensation of 5,000 euros (EUR).
On 24 September 2014 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. It quashed the part of the decision concerning them and awarded them compensation of EUR 1,000 in addition to their legal costs and expenses.
The Constitutional Court noted that where the ordinary courts used only formal and standard phrases in their decisions on detention (as was the case with the applicants), suspicion arose as to whether they had looked properly at the specific circumstances at hand. It concluded that even though the ordinary courts had referred to some “specific facts found in the case files”, which allegedly justified the applicants’ detention, they had failed to explain them in their decisions. Furthermore, the appellate court had not dealt with some of the applicants’ core arguments and thus had not remedied the shortcomings of the lower court’s decision.
In view of the above, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicants’ pre-trial detention had been based on an arbitrary decision lacking proper and sufficient reasoning.
In the meantime, on 30 May 2014 the applicants were released and placed under supervised probation.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their right to liberty was breached, as indicated in the Constitutional Court’s judgment. They also complain under Article 41 that the sum awarded to them by the Constitutional Court was inadequate.
QUESTIONS
1. 1. In view of the Constitutional Court’s judgment in their case, can the applicants still claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34, as regards the alleged breach of Article 5 § 1 (see also C.B. v. Romania, no. 21207/03, § 75, 20 April 2010 and, mutatis mutandis, Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7481/06, § 24, 20 July 2010 or Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, §§ 143-149, 29 July 2010, with further references)?
2. If so, were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for their unlawful detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1 as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy