Communicated on 7 June 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no 2329/13
Plamen Stoyanov DOLCHINKOV
against Slovakia
lodged on 7 January 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Plamen Stoyanov Dolchinkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Gorna Oryahovitsa, Bulgaria. He is represented before the Court by Ms Ľ. Raffáčová, a lawyer practising in Košice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 1 March 2011 the applicant was arrested and charges were brought against him for the criminal offences of forgery, fraudulent document modification, and the illicit manufacturing of money and securities. Between March and April 2011, further charges were brought for similar offences.
Two days later, on 3 March 2011 the Košice II District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention under Article 71 § 1 (a) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of absconding, risk of reoffending). In this connection the court stated that the applicant was resident outside Slovakia and releasing him would have posed difficulties in respect of the investigation of such a serious crime. It also took into account the severity of the potential prison sentence, ranging between seven and ten years. The court also stated that the applicant was suspected of having committed similar offences in Italy, for which he was registered in Interpol’s search database. Furthermore, there was a suspicion of his having committed other similar offences in Košice, Slovakia.
On 31 August 2011 the public prosecutor submitted a request to the pre‑trial judge for extension of the applicant’s detention, arguing that further evidence needed to be secured. On 2 September 2011 the applicant applied for release from detention.
The pre-trial judge issued decisions in respect of both the aforementioned requests on 9 September 2011. The applicant’s request was dismissed and his detention extended until 30 November 2011. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, the pre‑trial judge referred to the ongoing investigation and the need to secure further evidence.
On 26 September 2011 the appellate court dismissed an interlocutory appeal lodged by the applicant.
On 20 October 2011 the applicant was indicted to stand trial before the District Court on the above charges, in addition to a charge of fraud.
On 9 November 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint relying, inter alia, on Article 5 of the Convention (and its Constitution equivalent). He alleged that the prosecutor, the pre-trial court and the appellate court had not proceeded lawfully when deciding the question of extending his detention.
On 15 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared his complaint partially admissible, namely in respect of Article 5 of the Convention concerning the impugned appellate court decision.
On 10 July 2012 the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment, finding a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty on the grounds that the appellate court’s decision had been based on incomplete information which meant that the reasons provided were insufficient. It stated that the appellate court had approved the extension of the applicant’s detention without examining whether the investigation had proceeded with special care and without undue delay. It therefore quashed that impugned decision and awarded the applicant legal costs and expenses. It did not award the applicant any just satisfaction since he had not requested it. As to the applicant’s request for release from detention, the Constitutional Court concluded that, since the applicant had in the meantime been found guilty as charged and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment by two levels of jurisdiction, he was serving a post-conviction sentence and it could therefore not grant his request. The Constitutional Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 6 August 2012.
In the course of the constitutional proceedings the applicant lodged another request for release during the trial hearing. His request was dismissed on 5 April 2012, the date on which he was found guilty by the District Court. His conviction was upheld on appeal on 28 June 2012 and the judgment became final.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that the Constitutional Court proceedings between 9 November 2011 and 6 August 2012 concerning his request for release did not meet the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS
1. When assessing the “speediness” requirement under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of proceedings held before the Constitutional Court (taking into account the Court’s case-law in Smatana v. the Czech Republic, no. 18642/04, § 125, 27 September 2007, and Kormoš v. Slovakia, no. 46092/06, § 94 8 November 2011 with further references), which period of time is the decisive one?
2. Did the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy