Published on 7 July 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 11982/24
Vojko PLANINC
against Slovenia
lodged on 19 April 2024
communicated on 20 June 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention and the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
The applicant was serving a nine-month prison sentence that was set to end on 3 February 2020. Meanwhile, on 3 December 2019, the Maribor District Court issued a two-month detention order on suspicion of illicit drug trafficking on the grounds of risk of reoffending. It ordered the applicant’s detention to be carried out after the expiration of the prison sentence. The detention order was enforced on 3 February 2020, as foreseen. Maribor District Court reviewed the grounds for the applicant’s detention on 31 March 2020 and ordered its continuation.
The applicant was unsuccessful with his appeal and request for protection of legality, in which he argued that the ordering of his detention in advance, that is with suspensive effect (pripor na zalogo), was not provided for in the domestic law. Following the applicant’s constitutional complaints, lodged on 23 March and 18 May 2020, the Constitutional Court, on 7 December 2023, found that the ordering of his detention (with suspensive effect) could, in itself, be considered lawful based on the combined interpretation of different legal provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act and the Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions Act. This decision was served on the applicant on 4 January 2024.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the detention order given on 3 December 2019 was unlawful as it had no clear basis in domestic law and lacked safeguards. The applicant further complains about a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time with respect to the duration of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s detention ordered on 3 December 2019 and implemented on 3 February 2020 “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?