BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
50929/08
Pierre WAKIL
against Slovakia
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
29 May 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ineta
Ziemele, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Nona
Tsotsoria, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 26 September 2008,
Having
regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
applicant, Mr Pierre Wakil, is a Slovak national, who was born in
1962. He is serving a prison term in Leopoldov.
- The
Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
- The
applicant was detained in custody in the context of criminal
proceedings in which he was accused of a drug offence.
- On
20 December 2007 he applied for release.
- The
Trnava District Court dismissed the complaint on 25 March 2008. The
decision was served on the applicant on 14 April 2008.
On 30 April 2008 the Trnava Regional Court dismissed
the applicant’s complaint against that decision.
- On
27 May 2008 the Constitutional Court found that in the above
proceedings the Trnava District Court had breached the applicant’s
right under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to have his
application for release decided speedily. It awarded the equivalent
of 995 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction and ordered
the District Court to reimburse the costs of the applicant’s
legal representation in the constitutional proceedings.
COMPLAINT
- With
reference to the above proceedings the applicant alleged a breach
of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that his right to a speedy review of his
application for release had been breached. He relied on Article 5 §
4 of the Convention which provides:
“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest
or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the
lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and
his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
- The
Government referred to the Constitutional Court’s judgment and
argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within
the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. They further maintained
that, in any event, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies
as he had not claimed compensation under the State Liability Act
2003.
- The
applicant argued that he had not obtained appropriate redress in the
proceedings before the Constitutional Court as (i) the just
satisfaction awarded to him was low and (ii) he had not been
released.
- The
Court reiterates that an applicant’s status as a “victim”
within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention depends on whether
the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in
substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention and, if
necessary, provided appropriate redress. Only when these conditions
are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism
of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see
Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, ECHR
2006-V).
- In
the present case the Constitutional Court, on 27 May
2008, found that in the above proceedings the Trnava District Court
had breached the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 4 of
the Convention to have his application for release decided speedily.
It awarded the equivalent of EUR 995 to the applicant as just
satisfaction and ordered the District Court to reimburse the costs of
the applicant’s legal representation in the constitutional
proceedings.
- Having
regard to the fact that the Constitutional Court expressly
acknowledged a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 5
§ 4 of the Convention, the established
case-law on the subject, and to the fact that the amount of just
satisfaction is comesurate with its own awards under Article 41
of the Convention in similar cases (see Štetiar
and Šutek v. Slovakia, nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, §§
128 and 137, 23 November 2010; Gál v. Slovakia,
no. 45426/06, §§ 62 and 73, 30 November 2010;
Osváthová v. Slovakia,
no. 15684/05, §§ 69 and 104, 21 December 2010; or
Michalák v. Slovakia, no. 30157/03, §§ 200
and 228, 8 February 2011), the Court
concludes that the applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim”
within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of the alleged
violation of Article 5 § 4.
- It
follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with
Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Ineta Ziemele
Deputy Registrar President
