In the first case, the complainant, who was prosecuted custody, complained of breach of the right to personal freedom when he claimed that His bond was not sufficiently justified and that its review did not meet the requirements of acceleration and impartiality. As for the next objection, the ECtHR appealed to its judgment short against the Slovak Republic of 25 April 2024 in the case that originated in the same criminal case and stated that it stated that Complainant’s custody from 6 March 2017 to 25 September 2020 was justified. He therefore refused this part of the complaint as obviously unsubstantiated.
did not meet the requirement of acceleration. Therefore, he stated the violation of Article 4 of the Convention. He did not consider the objection concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of the court in proceedings on the custody of the applicant of the ECtHR to be necessary independently. The ECtHR for the detected violation awarded the applicant EUR 1,600 for non -pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 as compensation for costs and expenses. The judgment was adopted by the three -member committee of the ECtHR judges and entered into force on the date of publication.
In the case of Kiaček against the Slovak Republic, the complainant objected to a violation of his right because, as a result of non -delivery of a third -party statement in response to his constitutional complaint was violated his right to a fair action, namely the principle of continuance and equality of weapons. In its opinion, the Government claimed, inter alia, that the applicant’s objection was obviously unsubstantiated, since a third party’s statement was not even theoretically capable of changing the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. This statement contained nothing new beyond what the complainant had already had the opportunity to comment before the courts of lower stages. The ECtHR adopted the government’s argument and acknowledged that the arguments contained in a third -party statement were submitted, reviewed and answered before two levels of general courts.
Since the complainant had the opportunity to comment on the arguments of a third party during national proceedings before the general courts, Failure to deliver a third party’s statement in proceedings before the Constitutional Court could not represent an obstacle for him to submit in the present proceedings all the arguments he considered necessary for the success of his constitutional complaint. Therefore, the complainant did not disrupt the complainant’s failure to deliver to the applicant the proceedings and to provide the applicant to comment on the statement of a third party in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court would not change the outcome of the proceedings. Therefore, the ECtHR declared a complaint unacceptable because of the apparent unsubstantiated.
