CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Published on 31 January 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 45645/21 Vladimír PČOLINSKÝ against Slovakia lodged on 8 September 2021 communicated on 10 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lawfulness of the detention pending trial on corruption charges of the applicant, a former Director of the Slovak Intelligence Service, in a situation in which his remand in detention was first upheld by all levels of courts, but the Prosecutor General (exercising his extraordinary powers under Article 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) subsequently quashed the decision to bring charges against the applicant as being unlawful and arbitrary. It raises issues under Article 5 §§   1 (c) and 4 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular, in view of the decision of the Prosecutor General of 31   August 2021 and the reasons behind it, could the applicant claim any compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention under the State Liability Act (Law no. 514/2003 Coll., as amended)? If so, under which provision and pursuant to which judicial practice (if any)?   2.     Having regard to his claim that his case was decided upon without taking into account a part of the case-file (the so-called confidential enclosure to the investigation file), in the light of the relevance of the content of that enclosure as reflected in the Prosecutor General’s decision, was the applicant’s detention on remand lawful and ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, as required by Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention?   3.     In the light of his claim that his case was decided upon without taking into account the so-called confidential enclosure and the relevance of its content, was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?