- With its delays, the Supreme Court violated Bombica’s constitutional right to personal freedom.
- At the same time, the court violated Bombica’s right to freedom and security according to the convention.
- The Constitutional Court recognized the unjustified delays and the arguments of the defense as justified and reasonable.
The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic violated Daniel Bombic’s basic right to personal freedom in the custodial criminal case by unjustified delays in the proceedings according to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, as well as his fundamental right to freedom and security according to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Constitutional Court (ÚS) of the Slovak Republic decided on it.
Lawyer David Lindtner informed about it, stating that Daniel Bombic remains in custody despite the decision of the ÚS SR and the unlawful suspended prison sentence. Martina Ferencová, the spokeswoman for the ÚS SR, told TASR that in order to protect the rights and legally protected interests of the complainants, she does not provide information about submissions and proceedings concerning specific natural persons.
“The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic confirmed the correctness of the arguments of the defense, which contested the procedure of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic with a constitutional complaint,” said Lindtner. As he explained, the consequence of the Supreme Court’s action was that Daniel Bombic’s detention for three and a half months was not covered by the court’s valid detention decision. At the same time, according to him, the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic thwarted Daniel Bombic’s right to request release from custody at regular monthly intervals, which is guaranteed by the Criminal Procedure Code for every person being prosecuted in custody.
In March, the specialized criminal court in Pezinok found Daniel Bombic guilty of all the charges related to several extremist crimes. He imposed on the defendant a total suspended sentence of imprisonment for three years with a probationary period of four years. The judgment is not final. Prosecutor Michal Stanislav and Daniel Bombic appealed against all statements of the judgment.
