Background
Jakub Želinský and Ján Marčák were in pre-trial detention in Slovakia. Each sought release, but the Public Prosecution Service rejected the request and transferred the matter to a first-instance court. Both applicants appealed the ensuing decisions.
Želinský’s request was reviewed by two levels of ordinary courts over fifty-nine days, followed by Constitutional Court proceedings lasting two months and fifteen days. Marčák’s request was reviewed by two levels of ordinary courts over sixty-eight days. Both complained under Article 5 § 4 that the judicial review of their detention-release requests had not been conducted speedily.
The Court’s Holding
The Court joined the applications, declared them admissible, and unanimously held that Slovakia had violated Article 5 § 4. That provision requires a speedy judicial determination of a detained person’s request for release.
The Court noted delays attributable to the authorities, including thirteen- and seventeen-day periods to serve decisions in Želinský’s case, more than a month to serve the Constitutional Court’s decision on his lawyer, and nearly a month for the appellate court to serve its decision in Marčák’s case. Although Želinský took twenty-one days to supplement the reasons for his appeal, the cases were not particularly complex and the overall delays were not justified. The Court awarded Želinský €1,200 and Marčák €1,000 in damages, plus €250 each for costs and expenses.
Key Takeaways
- Article 5 § 4 requires speedy review of requests for release from pre-trial detention.
- The relevant period generally runs from the request to domestic authorities until the decision is communicated to the applicant or representative.
- Delays in serving detention-review decisions can be attributable to the authorities and contribute to a violation.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that speediness in detention review concerns the entire process, including communication of decisions—not merely the date on which courts deliberate or issue them. Administrative delays in service may therefore engage Article 5 § 4.
For Slovak authorities, the ruling follows the Court’s earlier case-law on delayed detention review and confirms that ordinary and constitutional review must be handled promptly where a person remains in pre-trial detention.