5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Bratislava. 6.  On 20 December 2014 the Bratislava IV District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the context of criminal proceedings in which he was prosecuted for committing the criminal offence of manslaughter. The reason for his detention was the risk of reoffending. 7.  On 3 March 2015 the applicant submitted a request to the District Prosecution Office for release from pre-trial detention. In it, he asked for his detention to be replaced with supervision by a probation officer. The request was received by the latter on 4 March 2015 and dismissed on 5 March 2015, following which it was transferred to the District Court for a judicial determination. 8.  On 26 March 2015 the District Court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant’s request for release. The written version of that decision was served on the applicant on 14 April 2015 and, after several unsuccessful attempts at delivery, was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 21 April 2015. 9.  The applicant’s lawyer lodged a written interlocutory appeal with the District Court within the statutory three-day period, namely on 24 April 2015. The case file was transferred to the Bratislava Regional Court on 29 April 2015 and the applicant’s appeal was dismissed in chambers on 7 May 2015. The written version of that decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 18 May 2015. 10.  On 1 June 2015 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint, relying inter alia on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. He alleged that the authorities had not proceeded speedily with his request for release. He formally challenged the proceedings held before the District Curt, the decision of the Regional Court of 7 May 2015 and the proceedings preceding this decision. He also requested compensation of 2,000 euros (EUR) in addition to his legal costs and expenses. 11.  On 30 March 2016 the Constitutional Court declared the part of his complaint in respect of the proceedings held before the District Court admissible and the remainder inadmissible. The Constitutional Court held that it had found no irregularities in the Regional Court’s decision of 7 May 2015. 12.  On 21 June 2016 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right guaranteed under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. It did not award him any compensation or legal costs and expenses. The Constitutional Court scrutinised only the District Court’s proceedings and concluded that they had lasted 44 days. The District Court had therefore failed to deal with the applicant’s request speedily and to serve the written decision on him promptly. With respect to the financial compensation, the Constitutional Court referred to “the principle of fairness”, “the particular circumstances of the case”, the duration of the delays and the intensity of the interference, and concluded that the finding of a violation of the applicant’s right constituted a sufficient redress.