KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA

• Judgment Date: 25 April 2024
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0425JUD005578820
• Date: 25 April 2024
• Application Number: 55788/20;8058/21;21850/21;22074/21
• Court: First Section Committee (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: Eslovaquia
• Applied Rules: 5;5-4

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA

(Applications nos. 55788/20 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

25 April 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Krátky v. Slovakia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Péter Paczolay, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the dates indicated in the appended table by two Slovak nationals, Mr Dávid Krátky (“the first applicant”) and Mr Dominik Krátky (“the second applicant”), who are twin brothers born in 1991 and are currently detained;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention concerning the length and alleged arbitrariness of their detention on remand and the alleged lack of speediness and other procedural guarantees in proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of their detention to the Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Bálintová, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

the parties’ observations;

the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 2 April 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the length and justification of the applicants’ detention on remand and the speediness of, and other procedural guarantees in, the proceedings on the review of its lawfulness.

2. On 6 March 2017 the applicants were arrested and later remanded in custody pending trial on drug-related charges with an organised-crime background.

3. Having been committed for trial on 29 October 2018, they were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment on 25 September 2020. Upon the dismissal of their appeal, the convictions became final, but they were quashed on 28 February 2024 in response to the applicants’ appeal on points of law. They were then again remanded pending a new trial.

4. In the present case, relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the length of their detention in the context of their original trial and contested its justification, as those matters had been addressed in the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 13 May 2020, case no. IV. US 171/20 (application no. 55788/20), 7 July 2020, case no. II. US 337/20 (application no. 8058/21), 10 September 2020, case no. II. US 381/20, and 18 March 2021, case no. II. US 129/21 (applications nos. 22074/21 and 21850/21).

5. Furthermore, under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, they contended that the Constitutional Court’s review of the lawfulness of their detention, resulting in its decisions of 10 September 2020 (applications nos. 22074/21 and 21850/21) and 18 March 2021 (applications nos. 22074/21 and 21850/21), had fallen short of the requirement of speediness.

6. Lastly, relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the first applicant complained (application no. 55788/20) that, in the proceedings ultimately resulting in the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 May 2020, no account had been taken of the reasons submitted on 28 January 2020 for an interlocutory appeal which he had lodged against a decision of 15 January 2020 dismissing his request for release.

1. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
   1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

8. The Court does not find it necessary to consider the Government’s non‑exhaustion objection, since the complaint under Article 5 § 3 is in any event inadmissible on the following grounds.

9. The applicants’ detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention commenced on 6 March 2017 and ended on 25 September 2020. It accordingly lasted three years, six months and twenty-one days. It was based on their suspected involvement in extensive and particularly serious drug-related offences with an organised-crime background. Between 3 July 2017 and 26 February 2018 their initial charges were amended, and new charges were added on a number of occasions, including the charge of murder.

10. Throughout its duration, the applicants’ detention was considered necessary to prevent them from (i) fleeing, (ii) interfering with the course of justice, and (iii) reoffending.

11. In the decisions contested before the Court, the domestic courts noted, as regards ground (i), the severity of the possible sentence (life imprisonment), the fact that the first applicant had previously fled to and had been in hiding in the Czech Republic, where he had a support base, as well as the fact that there was evidence that the applicants had sought to obtain fake identification documents. Moreover, in the final round of review, it was noted that they had no registered address in Slovakia.

12. As to ground (ii), the courts referred to the organised character of the criminal activities that had given rise to the prosecution, their hierarchical structure, the applicants’ leading position within that structure, and the fact that they had been asserting their authority by violence. On that last point, the murder of which the applicants stood accused had been motivated by revenge for the victim’s collaboration with the police, and two other witnesses incriminating the...