CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 November 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 53573/22 Dávid KRÁTKY against Slovakia lodged on 3 November 2022 communicated on 20 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s request for a videocall to be authorised with his partner while he was in detention pending trial. The applicant requested a videocall (a replacement for regular visits, given the covid-19 pandemic restrictions at the time), which was initially scheduled for 4 January 2021. Under the applicable law, in force at the relevant time, regulating the pre-trial detention for prevention from interfering with the course of justice ( kolúzna väzba ), all requests were to be authorised by the courts handling the applicant’s criminal trial. However, the Specialised Criminal Court did not decide whether to authorise the videocall, which had not taken place in the absence of such decision. The applicant thus complained to the Constitutional Court. The Specialised Criminal Court stated in its observations to the Constitutional Court that the videocall was not decided on, as the judge presiding over the chamber was absent when the request was delivered to the court and returned to work only once the scheduled time for the videocall had passed. On 27 September 2022, the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint (IV. ÚS 462/2022), referring to the abovementioned observations, without requesting further comments from the applicant. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that (i)   the request was not considered by the Specialised Criminal Court in time for the videocall to take place, and (ii) the Constitutional Court dismissed his complaint without providing him the opportunity to comment on the observations of the Specialised Criminal Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, in that his request for a videocall with his partner was not dealt with in time (compare Lebois v. Bulgaria , no. 67482/14, §§ 60-64, 19 October 2017, and Ciupercescu v. Romania (no. 3) , nos. 41995/14 and 50276/15, §§ 104-08, 7   January 2020)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in terms of Article   8 §   2 of the Convention (see, for instance, Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-26, ECHR   2015)? In particular, having regard to the procedural obligations inherent in Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Fernández Martínez v.   Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Maslák v.   Slovakia (no. 2) , no. 38321/17, §§ 163-5, 172-74, 31 March 2022), have the authorities afforded due respect for the interests safeguarded by this provision, in light of: - the lack of a decision on the request for a videocall (compare Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 108, 6 December 2022; and contrast Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria , no. 33726/03, § 29, 1 October 2009), and - the Constitutional Court dismissing the constitutional complaint without giving the applicant an opportunity to comment on the observations of the Specialised Criminal Court (see, mutatis mutandis , Čičmanec v. Slovakia , no.   65302/11, §§ 56-65, 28 June 2016, and Janáček v. the Czech Republic , no.   9634/17, §§ 46-48, 2 February 2023)?