THIRD SECTION
Application no. 10212/11
Milan PODHRADSKÝ
against Slovakia
lodged on 3 February 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Milan Podhradský, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Šaľa. He is represented before the Court by Ms D. Matušková, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.
A. The circumstances of the case
1. Criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s abduction
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 May 2001 the applicant was abducted by masked persons. Under the threat of killing him and his daughter they obliged the applicant to sign a document on transfer of his share in a business company. He was released on 23 May 2001.
After his release the applicant contacted the Regional Directorate of the Police Corps in Nitra. He was heard several times by that authority. Subsequently the case was transferred to the Šaľa District Office of Investigation which started criminal proceedings on 11 October 2001.
Between December 2001 and 2007 the above police authority stayed the investigation and public prosecutors at several levels ordered it to resume it on several occasions. In October 2007 the case was transferred to the Office for Fighting Organised Crime.
On 29 January 2008 two persons were accused of extortion and of restricting the applicant’s personal freedom.
On 18 April 2008 the applicant stated before the investigator that he claimed 180,126 euros (EUR) in compensation for his share in the company of which he had been deprived as well as approximately EUR 4,300 corresponding to the value of money in different currencies which had been taken from him in cash during his abduction. As to the latter sum, the applicant referred to a record of his statement before the police of 24 May 2001.
On 22 October 2008 the proceedings were split in two parts.
The first set of proceedings has concerned the persons who had ordered and organised the applicant’s abduction. Two persons were indicted in that context in May 2010. The proceedings are pending before the trial court.
The other set of proceedings has aimed at identification of the persons who had abducted the applicant. Those proceedings were stayed on 17 August 2010. On 8 November 2012 a public prosecutor ordered the criminal proceedings to be resumed. They are pending before the Office for Fighting Organised Crime.
2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
On 12 April 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint to the Constitutional Court. He alleged, inter alia, that the Office for Fighting Organised Crime and several public prosecution offices involved had breached his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
On 29 June 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. With reference to Article 46 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it held that a person who considers to have suffered damage as a result of a criminal offence may claim to be a victim of a breach of his or her right to a hearing within a reasonable time only after an individual has been accused of an offence.
The Constitutional Court had therefore power to examine only the proceedings subsequent to the accusation of two persons on 29 January 2008. With reference to the actions taken by the police investigator after that date, the Constitutional Court concluded that the period under its consideration, namely 2 years and 3 months, was not excessively long.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in Loveček and Others v. Slovakia, no. 11301/03, §§ 33-46, 21 December 2010 and Bíro v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 57678/00, §§ 26-35, 27 June 2006.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that (i) his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time was breached in the context of the criminal proceedings in which he submitted his claim for damages, and (ii) he was unable to obtain redress before the Constitutional Court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. As from what date has Article 6 § 1 of the Convention been applicable to the criminal proceedings complained of? In particular, (i) when did the applicant for the first time formally indicate to the police investigator that he wished to join the criminal proceedings with his claim for damages while specifying the amount claimed, and (ii) to what extent is relevant the Constitutional Court’s argument that the applicant lacked standing to file a valid claim for compensation prior to formal instigation of criminal prosecution of a specific person (see also Loveček and Others v. Slovakia, no. 11301/03, §§ 44-45 and 51-53, 21 December 2010, with further references and Pfleger v. the Czech Republic, no. 58116/00, § 39, 27 July 2004, with further reference)?
2. Has the duration of the relevant period been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy