CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Communicated on 12 November 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 17101/19 Ladislav KUC against Slovakia lodged on 22 March 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness and length of the applicant’s detention which was ordered on 14 April 2016 after his first criminal conviction had been quashed. On 11 September 2017, following the Court’s judgment in the applicant’s case no. 37498/14, the applicant lodged a request for release, accompanied by a proposal of guarantees, which was rejected by two levels of courts (IV. ÚS 447/2018). In the second round of the criminal proceedings, the applicant was convicted and sentenced again, on 2 November 2017, which was confirmed by the appellate court on 24 January 2018. Relying on Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant submits that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity of his continued detention. In his view the courts failed to duly consider his health condition (long-lasting mental disorder) and the fact that he had already been in detention prior to his first conviction, i.e. from 1 st January 2012, which rendered the whole duration of the detention excessive. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the length of the applicant’s detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the applicant’s continued detention and did the competent authorities display special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant?